Poll: Why we need economic regulation.

[werepossum]

SNIP
You're confusing manpower with spending. US military spending dwarfs that of any other nation on earth. Manpower is a very misleading indicator of military strength that hawks like to use to alarm people who don't know the difference.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
We spend nearly twice as much as the EU as a whole, more than ten times what Russia does, and just under ten times what China does assuming their published numbers are accurate.

As to Kuwait, you misunderstood my point entirely. Saddam Hussein was a US ally from when the CIA helped him seize power in 1968 to the moment he entered Kuwait in 1989. Kuwait is friendly to US business interests so we've left them alone. The US considered Kuwait's leadership to be more stable and cooperative than Hussein's government, so guess who we sided with? Also note that we went back and replaced the hostile but totally impotent and non-threatening (to the US proper, not our financial interests in the region) Iraqi government with a pro-US one in 2003.

As to your manufacturing, I'll admit to exaggerating for dramatic effect. The fact remains that the vast majority of that manufacturing is done overseas, despite much of it being done US companies. Add to that the fact that the US trade deficit is more than 60 Billion a month. As of July this year we import 1.37 times what we export in goods.
See:http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

This is fun. Your turn.

I'm not confusing the two metrics, merely pointing to one whilst you point to the other. The best metric of the level of militarization would be military expenditures as a percentage of GDP, simply because Russia or China get a lot more bang for their buck because their economies and the associated labor and materials are much less expensive. Looking at your own first link, the USA does not appear on the top fifteen countries in military expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Here's another link; as of 2005, the USA was rated by Nationmaster as eighteenth in military spending as a percentage of GDP at around 4%. Certainly European nations spend much less because the USA is bound by treaty to defend them. Or to put it another way, if the USA spent 1.35% of GDP (as does Germany), World War 3 would have been fought before the break-up of the USSR.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_of_gdp-military-expenditure-of-gdp

As to Kuwait and Iraq, Saddam Hussein was never an ally of the USA, nor was the CIA involved in any way in his coup. That is simply left wing drivel. The USA was firmly behind the West-friendly King Faisal II, whom the Brits installed in World War 2. (I'm sure the USA would have helped except we have zero covert operations capability at the time.) General Qassim, who took over, was a confirmed socialist who established close relations with the USSR. The USA and the UK tightened our relationships with Iran, because at the time the Shah was quite friendly to the West. Hussein was part of the Arab Socialist Renaissance Party (Ba'ath party) when it seized power in 1969, but was far from its leader. Nothing had changed; Iraq was still a USSR-friendly regime and Iran was still a Western-friendly regime. By murdering all those above and around him Hussein eventually named himself president in July 1979. By that time the Shah was in exile, but the USA and the UK still hoped to restore him to power (well, the USA except Carter.) When due to that idiot Jimmy Carter the revolutionary clerics took power in Iran and then Iraq later invaded Iran, the USA then offered very limited assistance in the form of satellite imagery to Hussein simply to damage Iran and reduce its ability to threaten Israel. They also hoped to destabilize the new theocracy to possibly allow the Shah to return and resume power, and to prolong and inflame conflict between an anti-Western USSR satellite and an anti-Western Islamic republic. But Hussein was in no way a US ally; he was simply the enemy of my enemy. If you want proof, look at the weaponry used in the Iraq-Iran war. Every single weapon system used by Iraq was Soviet except for a few M-108/M-109 SPGs captured in battle from the Iranians. Hussein got no weapons, no money, no training, no logistical assistance - nothing but satellite imagery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran

I admit the state of our trade deficit is horrible, but it is mainly oil and imported consumer goods that throw us into deficit, the former because of our asinine policy of denying ourselves our own oil and the latter because Americans simply buy whatever is cheapest and companies have learned to use cheaper third world and Mexican/South American/Caribbean labor. Personally I always buy US-made if it available, and I try to avoid Chinese-built if at all possible.

 

[Eyclonus]

I'm not confusing the two metrics, merely pointing to one whilst you point to the other. The best metric of the level of militarization would be military expenditures as a percentage of GDP, simply because Russia or China get a lot more bang for their buck because their economies and the associated labor and materials are much less expensive. Looking at your own first link, the USA does not appear on the top fifteen countries in military expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Here's another link; as of 2005, the USA was rated by Nationmaster as eighteenth in military spending as a percentage of GDP at around 4%. Certainly European nations spend much less because the USA is bound by treaty to defend them. Or to put it another way, if the USA spent 1.35% of GDP (as does Germany), World War 3 would have been fought before the break-up of the USSR.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_of_gdp-military-expenditure-of-gdp

Dude, basic economics point; military spending is rarely factored into GDP. Because of the nature of military spending, its regarded as Government Investments, same as bridges and roads aren't part of government spending. Military employees don't count as part of the labour force either, plus your only counting the whole population, not the number of service personal to number of workers.

 

[mooncalf]

It's naive to think that a market comprising BILLIONS of individually motivated elements can be regulated or even sufficiently understood to begin to frame the question of whether or not regulation is possible or necessary.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not confusing the two metrics, merely pointing to one whilst you point to the other. The best metric of the level of militarization would be military expenditures as a percentage of GDP, simply because Russia or China get a lot more bang for their buck because their economies and the associated labor and materials are much less expensive. Looking at your own first link, the USA does not appear on the top fifteen countries in military expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Here's another link; as of 2005, the USA was rated by Nationmaster as eighteenth in military spending as a percentage of GDP at around 4%. Certainly European nations spend much less because the USA is bound by treaty to defend them. Or to put it another way, if the USA spent 1.35% of GDP (as does Germany), World War 3 would have been fought before the break-up of the USSR.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_of_gdp-military-expenditure-of-gdp

Dude, basic economics point; military spending is rarely factored into GDP. Because of the nature of military spending, its regarded as Government Investments, same as bridges and roads aren't part of government spending. Military employees don't count as part of the labour force either, plus your only counting the whole population, not the number of service personal to number of workers.

Military spending isn't included as part of GDP because it's an expenditure, not a work product, but is often compared to GDP as a measure of how much a nation spends on defense. North Korea for example is hardly militarized at all compared to its absolute dollar value, but is the most militarized nation on Earth compared to North Korea's GDP. This is so often compiled and cited because the cost of building a weapons system, or training and maintaining a soldier, varies enormously with that country's labor costs and material resources (e.g. training and maintaining a North Korean soldier is much cheaper than training and maintaining a South Korean soldier, as building a missile is much cheaper in North Korea because the workers earn so little.) Additionally, while overall expenditures and weighted military strengths are better measures of a country's military power, military expenditures as a percentage of GDP is commonly used as the best measure of a country's militarization because it directly measures how much of a country's resources are diverted into military spending.

 

[Eyclonus]

Regulation is possible. Just a question of whether it actually achieves its aims.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

What am I missing?

Kuwait has hardly any human rights and is in no way a democracy, the USA's preferred type of government.

Having met the Emir, I can safely say that these two are wrong.

There is also the belief that, like Iraq, the Americans waited until the Iraqi's had invaded Kuwait until they responded. (Reports from the build up on Failaka Island were known about 72 hours prior to the invasion) Kuwait had been under the control of Saudi Arabia, which is why the country had turned 'dry', but America struck a deal with it where copyright law would now be vigorously pursued, because Kuwait didn't used to have any.
Many of the re-building contracts, especially the de-salination plants (the first to go) were given to American firms.

As for the Governmental types, it would be more appropriate to look at Kuwait/Iraq/Saudi as American States with their own mayors rather than countries. There are only 5 main families in the area, so nepocratics is probably the best way to describe their Governemental style.

They also own a large share in most British seaside towns.

What they don't own is any serious fighting equipment. Their Navy, when I saw it, consisted of 2 boats. However, they have a number of SAS training 'resorts'.

 

[742]

well either way we fail. heres why, people can and WILL fuck up any regulation. people WILL fuck things up if they arent kept in check by strict regulations. and maybe sometimes if they arent, just not as badly.

 

[Eyclonus]

well either way we fail. heres why, people can and WILL fuck up any regulation. people WILL fuck things up if they arent kept in check by strict regulations. and maybe sometimes if they arent, just not as badly.

You're stating the obvious. We know that and have talked of it, offer an alternative viewpoint or rebutt previously mentioned points.

 

[H0ncho]

people WILL fuck things up if they arent kept in check by strict regulations.

If people fuck things up then the regulations will also be fucked up, meaning that they only add another layer of fuckup.

That said, I am now unable to respond to any more posts since I'm leaving for national service, meaning that I'll be on the front lines if Georgia joins the NATO and unleashes WW3. Wish me luck.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Good luck Honcho. If you run into any enemy tanks, try and aim for the treads. Weak spot no.1

SInce when has democracy been the USA's preferred governmental type? ANy of these gents sound familiar:

Saddam Hussein
Them funny right-wing guerilla's in Nicaragua.
The Shah of Iran.
Batista.(Cuba)
Virtually every colony you forced the British Empire to decolonise like the great fools you were.
Saddam Hussein, simply because a man who nerve gasses his own people deserves more than one mention.
The current Algerian Junta (or is it Moroccan? I can never remember all these tin-pot states you support)
Israel, whose human rights record is only slightly better than that of Sadamm Husseins.
The Saudi royal family, who own thy asses.
ANd some other murderous sods.