|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 21, 2024 12:47:32 GMT
I don't fancy our chances of getting into a proper 'gearing up' mode. We just don't have the intellectual resources to make things on a large scale anymore.
Since the cultural revolution, the only things we can build in quantity are kebabs and DEI regulations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2024 13:06:18 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? No it didnt. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 13:07:30 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. We spend about 70bn, Germany about 60 France about 50 Italy 35 Spain 30 netherlands 20 etc etc. we still massively outspend Russia by about 5 to 1. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 13:14:16 GMT
SRB you are still missing the point. If it is possible and prudent for the UK to borrow another 40bn, it can choose whether to spend all 40bn on say healthcare and schools or it can spend 20bn on “defence” and 20bn on schools. Every Penny it spends on defence is diverted from an alternative (much needed) spend on healthcare or schools.
You may argue that that diversion of funds away from schools to “defence” is necessary (although frankly you haven’t put up a compelling case yet) but it is simply not the case that additional defence spending doesn’t reduce money we could spend on schools.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2024 13:26:23 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? Why do the 1930s fail as an analogy? The lessons are very relevant and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Your desire to ignore recent history is very telling, and appears to be because it does not support your assumption that we can all spend less than we already are on our militaries in a world with rapidly increasing global threats, including full scale invasions of sovereign nations. Without the USA , the military strength of NATO will be weaker than it has ever been since its formation. And a glance at US politics is enough to tell us that US support is far less than certain, especially if Trump gets in. If ever we have to fight Russia we will need the collective strength to be able to do so, which we do not have right now. Our own army is tiny compared to that of Russia. We may have weapons of superior technology but we don't have many of them. Far better if we and the rest of Europe are so strong that Russia will not dare to attack. If Russia wins in Ukraine and Trump is in the Whitehouse, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are dangerously exposed. And Putin has pretty much already said that they belong in the Russian sphere of influence. For as long as he is tied down in Ukraine he is unlikely to launch serious moves against anyone else. If he wins there, all bets are off. You might be willing to play fast in loose with the freedom of Europe as so many did in the 30s, but serious people do need to pay attention to history so that the same mistakes are not repeated. Only enough strength to defeat Putin will keep us all safe by deterring him. And if you think we have that already - that we are in fact already so strong that we can afford to cut military spending even further - you are being dangerously over-optimistic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2024 13:38:41 GMT
SRB you are still missing the point. If it is possible and prudent for the UK to borrow another 40bn, it can choose whether to spend all 40bn on say healthcare and schools or it can spend 20bn on “defence” and 20bn on schools. Every Penny it spends on defence is diverted from an alternative (much needed) spend on healthcare or schools. You may argue that that diversion of funds away from schools to “defence” is necessary (although frankly you haven’t put up a compelling case yet) but it is simply not the case that additional defence spending doesn’t reduce money we could spend on schools. It is you who has utterly missed the point with this simplistic nonsense, thinking as if a national budget is the same as a household one, a zero sum game. I have already explained how this is not so. Plus as a proportion of GDP we have borrowed much more in the past, and our debt levels are only mid-league compared to our major competitors. It is possible to increase spending in many departments without cuts in others, simply by borrowing more, and if we borrow to invest in the right things we can potentially grow our economy by more than enough to pay for the extra borrowing costs and actually in the medium term reduce our debt faster. You need to learn the difference between a household budget and a national one before you can make sensible points. With a household budget if you borrow to spend it does not increase your income. With a national budget it potentially can. A national budget has more in common with a business budget, where businesses borrow to expand and thereby increase their incomes. If you are going to ignore every such point I and others make and just spout the same simplistic nonsense we have already explained away but which you failed to address, then intelligent debate with you becomes impossible |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 14:21:42 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? Why do the 1930s fail as an analogy? The lessons are very relevant and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Your desire to ignore recent history is very telling, and appears to be because it does not support your assumption that we can all spend less than we already are on our militaries in a world with rapidly increasing global threats, including full scale invasions of sovereign nations. Without the USA , the military strength of NATO will be weaker than it has ever been since its formation. And a glance at US politics is enough to tell us that US support is far less than certain, especially if Trump gets in. If ever we have to fight Russia we will need the collective strength to be able to do so, which we do not have right now. Our own army is tiny compared to that of Russia. We may have weapons of superior technology but we don't have many of them. Far better if we and the rest of Europe are so strong that Russia will not dare to attack. If Russia wins in Ukraine and Trump is in the Whitehouse, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are dangerously exposed. And Putin has pretty much already said that they belong in the Russian sphere of influence. For as long as he is tied down in Ukraine he is unlikely to launch serious moves against anyone else. If he wins there, all bets are off. You might be willing to play fast in loose with the freedom of Europe as so many did in the 30s, but serious people do need to pay attention to history so that the same mistakes are not repeated. Only enough strength to defeat Putin will keep us all safe by deterring him. And if you think we have that already - that we are in fact already so strong that we can afford to cut military spending even further - you are being dangerously over-optimistic. For reasons I have already explained. In the 1930s (90 years ago) we didn't respond to German military strength. In the 2020s we do. We, in Western Europe already spend five times as much on military spending as Russia. It is of course necessary to learn the lessons of history. It is also necessary to avoid simplistically misinterpreting them as with all due respect you are. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 14:25:16 GMT
SRB you are still missing the point. If it is possible and prudent for the UK to borrow another 40bn, it can choose whether to spend all 40bn on say healthcare and schools or it can spend 20bn on “defence” and 20bn on schools. Every Penny it spends on defence is diverted from an alternative (much needed) spend on healthcare or schools. You may argue that that diversion of funds away from schools to “defence” is necessary (although frankly you haven’t put up a compelling case yet) but it is simply not the case that additional defence spending doesn’t reduce money we could spend on schools. It is you who has utterly missed the point with this simplistic nonsense, thinking as if a national budget is the same as a household one, a zero sum game. I have already explained how this is not so. Plus as a proportion of GDP we have borrowed much more in the past, and our debt levels are only mid-league compared to our major competitors. It is possible to increase spending in many departments without cuts in others, simply by borrowing more, and if we borrow to invest in the right things we can potentially grow our economy by more than enough to pay for the extra borrowing costs and actually in the medium term reduce our debt faster. You need to learn the difference between a household budget and a national one before you can make sensible points. With a household budget if you borrow to spend it does not increase your income. With a national budget it potentially can. A national budget has more in common with a business budget, where businesses borrow to expand and thereby increase their incomes. If you are going to ignore every such point I and others make and just spout the same simplistic nonsense we have already explained away but which you failed to address, then intelligent debate with you becomes impossible I have tried to patiently explain this point. You still don't get it. I am afraid you are talking nonsense now. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 21, 2024 16:46:39 GMT
SRB you are still missing the point. If it is possible and prudent for the UK to borrow another 40bn, it can choose whether to spend all 40bn on say healthcare and schools or it can spend 20bn on “defence” and 20bn on schools. Every Penny it spends on defence is diverted from an alternative (much needed) spend on healthcare or schools. You may argue that that diversion of funds away from schools to “defence” is necessary (although frankly you haven’t put up a compelling case yet) but it is simply not the case that additional defence spending doesn’t reduce money we could spend on schools. Or spend £80Bn or £200Bn |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 20:33:48 GMT
Yep but if you borrow £80bn, you have a choice whether to spend £80bn on schools and healthcare or £60bn on schools and healthcare and £20 bn on defence.
The same logic applies whichever figure you choose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 21, 2024 20:46:45 GMT
Yep but if you borrow £80bn, you have a choice whether to spend £80bn on schools and healthcare or £60bn on schools and healthcare and £20 bn on defence. The same logic applies whichever figure you choose. Doesn't matter the amount you can just keep raising the anti. Its such a rubbish argument I refuse to follow you down the rabbit hole. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 21, 2024 20:57:50 GMT
Of course I can keep "raising the ante". That is the very point. Whichever figure the country can prudently borrow, it will have a choice between either spending that figure entirely on health or partly on health and partly on defence. Therefore spending money on defence takes it away from spending on health. Its simple maths.
As I have said, it may be necessary to do so but there is a cost. In this case there is no evidence it is necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 21, 2024 21:03:47 GMT
Of course I can keep "raising the ante". That is the very point. Whichever figure the country can prudently borrow, it will have a choice between either spending that figure entirely on health or partly on health and partly on defence. Therefore spending money on defence takes it away from spending on health. Its simple maths. As I have said, it may be necessary to do so but there is a cost. In this case there is no evidence it is necessary. Yep 800bn on the health service, 2 quid on defence. Ah but that could be 800,000,000,000 and £2 for the health service. Very persuasive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2024 13:23:27 GMT
Yep but if you borrow £80bn, you have a choice whether to spend £80bn on schools and healthcare or £60bn on schools and healthcare and £20 bn on defence. The same logic applies whichever figure you choose. Utter nonsense, if we borrowed what we needed for the NHS but failed to borrow what we needed for defence, we would just be borrowing less. We might all be healthier, but such good health might not suffice if we find ourselves being shot at in wars, lol. The key thing is we actually can choose to borrow what we think we need so no zero sum game as you are trying to imply. Also, some types of borrowing to invest increase incomes so in the long run can reduce borrowing. You seem to be struggling to understand that. Until you do, there is little point in trying to debate with you further, |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2024 13:27:30 GMT
It is you who has utterly missed the point with this simplistic nonsense, thinking as if a national budget is the same as a household one, a zero sum game. I have already explained how this is not so. Plus as a proportion of GDP we have borrowed much more in the past, and our debt levels are only mid-league compared to our major competitors. It is possible to increase spending in many departments without cuts in others, simply by borrowing more, and if we borrow to invest in the right things we can potentially grow our economy by more than enough to pay for the extra borrowing costs and actually in the medium term reduce our debt faster. You need to learn the difference between a household budget and a national one before you can make sensible points. With a household budget if you borrow to spend it does not increase your income. With a national budget it potentially can. A national budget has more in common with a business budget, where businesses borrow to expand and thereby increase their incomes. If you are going to ignore every such point I and others make and just spout the same simplistic nonsense we have already explained away but which you failed to address, then intelligent debate with you becomes impossible I have tried to patiently explain this point. You still don't get it. I am afraid you are talking nonsense now. Your failure to understand something does not make it nonsense. It makes it your failure to understand something. A national budget is not the same as a household budget but is more similar to a business budget where borrowing to invest increases income if the right things are invested in. Zany is a businessman, I am sure he can confirm that. |
|
