Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2024 0:41:49 GMT
We have been spending the last five pages establishing that additional military spending is unnecessary SRB. It is telling that your only argument seems to date back to 80 years ago and completely ignore todays reality that Western Europe spends five times as much on the military as Russia and that a committed Russian army has only succeeded in advancing 100 miles against very limited Western involvement. As for Zany , he seems to angrily deny that government borrowing can be unlimited but at the same time angrily deny that there is a limit. I’m sorry I don’t understand his position. My position is unchanged. There is no case for additional military spending and all available monies , including from additional borrowing if prudent to do so, should be spent on the likes of schools hospitals and prisons and not wasted on unnecessary military spending. You mean you have spent the last five pages trying to tell us so in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Without US support the rest of us would need to spend a lot more on weapons and armed forces. You have established nothing to the satisfaction of the rest of us, especially since your contempt for the lessons of history is obvious. And I have just read the entire thread The "we" you spoke of supposedly establishing that you are right is merely yourself and one or two others who have in reality established nothing in the eyes of the rest of us beyond your own naivete on this issue. You dont establish anything by simply repeating yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 21, 2024 7:12:03 GMT
In fairness to dappy, he/she is making two points. One is an arguable position and the other isn't.
1) There is no need to increase military spending (arguable)
2) Higher Military spending will necessarily (somehow and some-when) come at the expense of other spending priorities (unarguable)
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 21, 2024 7:24:18 GMT
In fairness to dappy, he/she is making two points. One is an arguable position and the other isn't. 1) There is no need to increase military spending (arguable) 2) Higher Military spending will necessarily (somehow and some-when) come at the expense of other spending priorities (unarguable) Or increase borrowing above normal. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 21, 2024 7:49:16 GMT
In fairness to dappy, he/she is making two points. One is an arguable position and the other isn't. 1) There is no need to increase military spending (arguable) 2) Higher Military spending will necessarily (somehow and some-when) come at the expense of other spending priorities (unarguable) Or increase borrowing above normal. Your pool of borrowing is a resource like any other. I don't intend to try to teach basic economics to someone who is determined to live a fantasy world. If you can't see what the previous implies then someone is going to have to try to explain object persistence to you using coloured bricks. Perhaps dappy wil give it a go. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 21, 2024 7:59:10 GMT
Or increase borrowing above normal. Your pool of borrowing is a resource like any other. I don't intend to try to teach basic economics to someone who is determined to live a fantasy world. If you can't see what the previous implies then someone is going to have to try to explain object persistence to you using coloured bricks. Perhaps dappy wil give it a go. You could just pretend to be cleverer than me instead. Make it as simple as borrowing is a limited resource, end of. But that doesn't work in the real world. You can borrow more now and less later, you can borrow more and create a greater return on it. Perhaps re-read your Penguin ABC economics book. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 8:51:19 GMT
Zany, I am not sure why you can’t grasp this logic. I guess we all have mental blocks sometimes. I’ll have one more go.
The total amount of borrowing today is x
The maximum amount of borrowing we can prudently undertake is z
The additional amount we can spend is therefore z-x=y.
We have a choice how to spend that money either all on “defence”, a mixture of “defence” and other spending , or all on other spending. If you choose to spend any of y on defence, you have less resources to spend on other spending.
That logic breaks down only if y is so big that it can accommodate all sensible uses for “other spending” in which case the only use for available resource is “defence” or if there is no such thing as z in which case the logic will be that we can fix every single issue we have with public spending plus spend unlimited amounts on “defence” (it’s not clear then why you suggest just spending 2.5%) and introduce a universal income of say £100,000pa for all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 21, 2024 8:56:56 GMT
Zany, I am not sure why you can’t grasp this logic. I guess we all have mental blocks sometimes. I’ll have one more go. The total amount of borrowing today is x The maximum amount of borrowing we can prudently undertake is z The additional amount we can spend is therefore z-x=y. We have a choice how to spend that money either all on “defence”, a mixture of “defence” and other spending , or all on other spending. If you choose to spend any of y on defence, you have less resources to spend on other spending. That logic breaks down only if y is so big that it can accommodate all sensible uses for “other spending” in which case the only use for available resource is “defence” or if there is no such thing as z in which case the logic will be that we can fix every single issue we have with public spending plus spend unlimited amounts on “defence” (it’s not clear then why you suggest just spending 2.5%) and introduce a universal income of say £100,000pa for all. Of course I understand this and always have. The reason I asked you to put numbers to it is so I could show the weakness of such a generalised argument. The upper limit of borrowing is far higher than the amount we would need to borrow to fix the NHS. Further fixing the NHS does in its turn create more wealth as people are able to return to work. Your presumption depends on the idea that however much we borrow is the amount that will be needed. Which is absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 8:57:38 GMT
SRB , you haven’t posted any logic for increased military spending beyond looking back eighty years which fails as an analogy.
80 years ago we allowed German military spending to move way ahead of our own. We are not doing that now. Western Europe outspends Russia five to one and has shown in Ukraine that very limited engagement has restricted a much more committed Russian military to around 100 miles of the border, severely depleting the Russian military in the process. For reasons you haven’t justified you want to divert resources from hospitals to pay for Western Europe’s military spending to be seven times Russian spending. Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 9:04:33 GMT
Zany, I am not sure why you can’t grasp this logic. I guess we all have mental blocks sometimes. I’ll have one more go. The total amount of borrowing today is x The maximum amount of borrowing we can prudently undertake is z The additional amount we can spend is therefore z-x=y. We have a choice how to spend that money either all on “defence”, a mixture of “defence” and other spending , or all on other spending. If you choose to spend any of y on defence, you have less resources to spend on other spending. That logic breaks down only if y is so big that it can accommodate all sensible uses for “other spending” in which case the only use for available resource is “defence” or if there is no such thing as z in which case the logic will be that we can fix every single issue we have with public spending plus spend unlimited amounts on “defence” (it’s not clear then why you suggest just spending 2.5%) and introduce a universal income of say £100,000pa for all. Of course I understand this and always have. The reason I asked you to put numbers to it is so I could show the weakness of such a generalised argument. The upper limit of borrowing is far higher than the amount we would need to borrow to fix the NHS. Further fixing the NHS does in its turn create more wealth as people are able to return to work. Your presumption depends on the idea that however much we borrow is the amount that will be needed. Which is absurd. So you are arguing that there is a z but it is so high that y is huge enough to fix all the problems in the NHS and schools and prisons and social care and roads etc etc. so there is effectively no limit on what we can spend on “defence”. So why only increase it to 2.5% if there are resources available to spend 5%? And why not introduce a universal income of say £100,000 per year to help out people living on low incomes? |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 21, 2024 9:20:12 GMT
SRB , you haven’t posted any logic for increased military spending beyond looking back eighty years which fails as an analogy. 80 years ago we allowed German military spending to move way ahead of our own. We are not doing that now. Western Europe outspends Russia five to one and has shown in Ukraine that very limited engagement has restricted a much more committed Russian military to around 100 miles of the border, severely depleting the Russian military in the process. For reasons you haven’t justified you want to divert resources from hospitals to pay for Western Europe’s military spending to be seven times Russian spending. Why? Did German military spending 1330's exceed the spending of the rest of Europe combined? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 9:39:43 GMT
Well I can’t comment too much on the 14th century….
In the 1930s (which I know you meant) Italy was on Germany’s side, Spain had just fought a civil war so that really only left France and UK. I believe Germany was outspending them both. Remember too that there was no joint military structure (No NATO or even EU) between UK and France who were still competing between themselves globally. I know 1939 is all you really have but it really doesn’t work as a analogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 21, 2024 10:20:37 GMT
Well I can’t comment too much on the 14th century…. In the 1930s (which I know you meant) Italy was on Germany’s side, Spain had just fought a civil war so that really only left France and UK. I believe Germany was outspending them both. Remember too that there was no joint military structure (No NATO or even EU) between UK and France who were still competing between themselves globally. I know 1939 is all you really have but it really doesn’t work as a analogy. All good points and agreed. Its not a perfect analogy, but it does show unpreparedness is not a good idea. Do you agree that when Germany stepped up its military production the UK had to increase its spending to somewhere near 50% of GDP? That without American intervention we would have lost despite our allies in Europe. Would it then be reasonable at this time for each EU country to increase spending by a fraction of that 50% figure? Are we to once again assume America will pick up the bill for another European war? And is the reason no one threatens America that it spends 3.4% on defence. Or do you think current defence spending is sufficient to tackle Russia even if it follows Germany's increase in war spending? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 11:52:29 GMT
Well I can’t comment too much on the 14th century…. In the 1930s (which I know you meant) Italy was on Germany’s side, Spain had just fought a civil war so that really only left France and UK. I believe Germany was outspending them both. Remember too that there was no joint military structure (No NATO or even EU) between UK and France who were still competing between themselves globally. I know 1939 is all you really have but it really doesn’t work as a analogy. All good points and agreed. Its not a perfect analogy, but it does show unpreparedness is not a good idea. No one has suggested unpreparedness. Spending five times your “enemy” is not being unprepared. Do you agree that when Germany stepped up its military production the UK had to increase its spending to somewhere near 50% of GDP? Yes. I think it got to 56% in one year (1943?) That without American intervention we would have lost despite our allies in Europe. Probably a reasonable assertion Would it then be reasonable at this time for each EU country to increase spending by a fraction of that 50% figure? Are we to once again assume America will pick up the bill for another European war? No because we Western Europe already spend five times as much on military as Russia. Diverting more funds from schools and hospitals is unnecessary. And is the reason no one threatens America that it spends 3.4% on defence. I think discussion on Americ’s position in the world is for another thread. Or do you think current defence spending is sufficient to tackle Russia even if it follows Germany's increase in war spending? We spend five times as much on military spending than Russia and the evidence from Ukraine is that it is more than enough. Were Russia to materially change its policy. (Highly unlikely) we may have to respond but that is no justification now to divert much needed spending on say healthcare to unnecessary spending in defense. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 21, 2024 12:06:14 GMT
I think Russia HAS changed its military policy.
Its now spending 70% more. Up to 6% of GDP. Just over $100Bn We spend $57Bn.
Russia has announced plans to increase it again by another 30%
The howling is not the wind speaking of the wolves, it is the wolves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2024 12:46:41 GMT
In fairness to dappy, he/she is making two points. One is an arguable position and the other isn't. 1) There is no need to increase military spending (arguable) 2) Higher Military spending will necessarily (somehow and some-when) come at the expense of other spending priorities (unarguable) The logic of that is not unreasonable. That more military spending is going to be necessary is very arguable. The second point bears up logically too, though with the proviso that Zany is also right. We could borrow a lot more to fund spending increases across all departments. Increasing military spending need not come at the expense of cuts everywhere else just yet. But there must be somewhere an upper limit as to what we can safely borrow, and opinions will differ as to where that is. Some can and do argue that we are already at that limit. Others cite historical precedent and/or international comparisons to put forward the view that we could afford to borrow much, or at least a little, more. Some people also take the view that how affordable more borrowing is depends a lot upon what it is spent on. Borrowing to invest in infrastructure, housing and developing technologies of the future would likely boost our economy by more than the cost of the added borrowing, so that in the medium to long term our debt falls faster than it otherwise would. Those who simplistically assume a national budget is the same as a household budget always seem to struggle to understand this. Borrowing just to fund day to day expenditure is often viewed as much less affordable. But even the latter assumption is far from simple. Borrowing to increase sickness benefits, pensions, or public sector pay by large amounts would result in the sick, the elderly and state employees spending more money and thereby boosting economic activity and therefore growth. Though it could also stoke inflation. And probably won't boost economic growth enough to pat for the cost of doing this. Otherwise it would be way too easy, lol. What all this tends to demonstrate though is that borrowing to spend is not a zero sum game but actually a highly complex matter which probably requires a degree in economics to fully understand. There will be a limit somewhere though, and if we wish to spend beyond that limit in any department, at that point it can only safely be paid for by cuts elsewhere or tax increases. Like Zany I would tend to believe we are nowhere near the end of the safe borrowing limit as yet, so increased military spending does not in my view necessitate cuts elsewhere just yet. That would be an ideological choice rather than a necessity. Because we need real spending increases across most departments not just the military. Excessive austerity did us immense economic damage, both socially and economically and does need to be undone. |
|
