The Economist no longer buys the anti-European hype | 69 comments (69 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

militarism (4.00 / 3)

You raise a very real question, but the point to not in that respect is that most US military spending has been paid for by others, via huge deficits and massive forieng borrowing. China, Russia, Japna and Saudi Arabia are paying for America's weapons and soldiers. In principle, it's debt, to be repaid, but that's quite a bet to take, to use your own surpluses to arm the biggest bully around.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 09:28:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: militarism (none / 1)

That's an interesting idea I bring up at times.

The US is protecting our oil supplies at zero cost for us (Swedes). As a reward they get political influence which they might or might not manage to transform into wealth.

No matter what it's a win-win situation for us. That is, as long as the Americans don't go all squishy in the head. And that is the problem since about 2002.

And yes, our big weapons industry complain. I can live with that.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 09:40:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: militarism (4.00 / 2)

But the US goverment also use their political influence in ways that hurt our (non-military) industries. When it comes to standards they routinely throw in their political influence to guard their own industries in a way that hurts competition, often in Europe.

We might still (probably are) economic benefactors of the american empire, but the picture is a bit more complicated.

The question of course is benefactors compared to what? The obivious losers in the empire or our situation in another system?

One can imagine a world were oil supplies did not need to be guarded by an imperial strikeforce.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 10:36:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: militarism (none / 0)

The only example when European industry is discriminated against is when the US push countries to buy F-16 instead of JAS Gripen. Very sad, but still.

Okay, and all those Iraq construction contracts. But as the conqueror, America is the looter. It's only common sense they keep the profits for their own companies, those who payed for the war. Return on investment.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 11:36:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: militarism (none / 1)

Aha! Gotcha! No Keynesian You!

Well, a bit hyperbolic, but you are looking at the finance and overlooking the cash flows. While much of US militarism is funded from abroad (given the size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP, the size of the deficit net government investment service as a percentage of government consumption spending must be really hefty) ...

... much of it is spent abroad. More than 700 acknowledged overseas bases and likely more than 1000 total does not come without a current account outflow. Add in an expensive occupation of a country in the middle of a civil war, and the current account price tag of US militarism must be very high indeed.

Certainly in the aggregate, China is accumulating US reserves to help finance US imports of Chinese products, or products with substantial Chinese value added. Which was the same position as the US post-WWII, except spending on reconstruction and industrial development does far more to help meet obligations being accumulated than spending on foreign entanglements.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 10:26:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: militarism (4.00 / 2)

Common wisdom says that the US deficit is used to pay for militarism, but we could just as easily say it is being used to pay for US consumerism. Walmart, for example, imports about $15 billion from China alone.

The point is that the US is providing protective (?) services to other countries thus giving them a free ride.

The UK is in the middle of a bribery scandal with Saudi Arabia. Something like $80 billion in arms trades over the past decade and future sales are involved. This a perfect case where Europe sells (mostly useless) military equipment whereas the US has to provide the troops and run the bases.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 11:06:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: militarism (none / 0)

I staunchly protest that European weapons are mostly useless or inferior to American arms.

Please give an example.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 11:36:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: militarism (none / 0)

Well one could say that all weapons are useless, but what I meant was that since Saudi Arabia is not under any threat from neighbors having a new fleet of fighter jets won't improve their security.

If anything most middle east regimes are most at risk from internal coups. Heavy equipment usually doesn't help in such a situation.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 11:40:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: militarism (none / 0)

Saudi Arabia not under threat?

In 1991 Saudi Arabia was next in line after Kuwait. As long as Saddam was around Saudi Arabia was under threat. Now when he is gone and the Americans are preparing to leave with the tails between their legs SA must prepare to intervene in Iraq to save the Sunnis and hold of the influence of it's main enemy... Iran.

For at least 50 years Saudi Arabia has been in conflict with Iran over the control of the Persian gulf.

It's hard to imagine many countries with a greater need for a strong defence than Saudi Arabia. Maybe Iran.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 11:52:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: militarism (none / 1)

It's hard to imagine many countries with a greater need for a strong defence than Saudi Arabia. Maybe Iran.

Maybe they could enter into a mutual defence agreement. That would solve a lot of problems.

But as long as it's the Wahhabis against the Ayatollahs, it doesn't sound likely.

Saudi Arabia has the little problem that the oil-rich region has a (repressed) Shiite majority, as well.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 at 11:58:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Economist no longer buys the anti-European hype | 69 comments (69 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Rabies Brexplained

Transition In America

I don't like lawyers

The economic realities of a united Ireland

Raising public morale

Europe under Covid-19

The Human Trouble According to James Baldwin

Brexit and Northern Ireland's food supply

Recent Diaries

Rabies Brexplained

I don't like lawyers

Transition In America

The economic realities of a united Ireland

Raising public morale

Europe under Covid-19

The Human Trouble According to James Baldwin

Brexit and Northern Ireland's food supply

The powers of the President of the USA

Georgia on my mind

US Elections Live Blog

Occasional Series