We could practically end world hunger if we spent a portion of what we spend on our military helping those who are starving.
A small portion.
Around 30 billion a year.
We spend 570 billion+ on our military per year.
Is anyone else disgusted by this?
Not at all.
You would have to change human nature which is predatory and always uses force to get what it wants, if it can get away with it.
It is the nature of the beast.
Quote from: pr126 on January 18, 2016, 01:43:24 AM
Not at all.
You would have to change human nature which is predatory and always uses force to get what it wants, if it can get away with it.
It is the nature of the beast.
All because it's human nature doesn't make it right.
I don't even think it's human nature, I think it's more ignorance if anything from most people, you're told that the boogeyman is gonna getcha, and if you hand over some money we'll take care of it.
Even though we have a military budget near the size of the rest of the world combined.
Try some reality.
Do you see what is going on around the world?
Do you think that by reducing US military spending it will eliminate world hunger?
Billions in aid has been given to Africa in the last 50 years. Did that change anything?
I'm actually prone to agree with pr's basic premise... believe it or not...
Quote from: pr126 on January 18, 2016, 01:56:04 AM
Try some reality.
Do you see what is going on around the world?
Do you think that by reducing US military spending it will eliminate world hunger?
Billions in aid has been given to Africa in the last 50 years. Did that change anything?
We spend 570 billion+ On our military per year, the un estimated it would take 30 billion per year to end world hunger.
Quote from: Jannabear on January 18, 2016, 02:32:16 AM
We spend 570 billion+ On our military per year, the un estimated it would take 30 billion per year to end world hunger.
That estimate is quite generous. If we were to throw 30 billion dollars worth of food at the rest of the world... do you think it would fix a thing? No... because there are still evil people who would make sure that never reaches the mouth of the person actually starving. There are evil people who would (and have) turned it into propaganda against us... that it's poisoned or in some way tainted and a conspiracy to destroy their power. So... so many of the world's needy live in countries that have issues that won't be solved with throwing money at it.
This is where pr and I differ I believe; I believe that change should come from inside and can come from inside whereas he tends to believe such changes are impossible or unwanted and can only be forced upon a society. And dare I say it... I think pr's point (if I interpret it correctly) is occasionally correct... I just choose to want to believe the world is fundamentally a good place and we should avoid any sort of conflict until the last possible moment to give the good people a chance.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 18, 2016, 02:54:21 AM
That estimate is quite generous. If we were to throw 30 billion dollars worth of food at the rest of the world... do you think it would fix a thing? No... because there are still evil people who would make sure that never reaches the mouth of the person actually starving. There are evil people who would (and have) turned it into propaganda against us... that it's poisoned or in some way tainted and a conspiracy to destroy their power. So... so many of the world's needy live in countries that have issues that won't be solved with throwing money at it.
This is where pr and I differ I believe; I believe that change should come from inside and can come from inside whereas he tends to believe such changes are impossible or unwanted and can only be forced upon a society. And dare I say it... I think pr's point (if I interpret it correctly) is occasionally correct... I just choose to want to believe the world is fundamentally a good place and we should avoid any sort of conflict until the last possible moment to give the good people a chance.
The Notion that everyone who's starving is under some dictatorship is silly.
I agree we couldn't end all of world hunger due to political reasons but we can definitely make a MASSIVE difference if we take a small amount out of our military budget.
Quote from: Jannabear on January 18, 2016, 02:56:38 AM
The Notion that everyone who's starving is under some dictatorship is silly.
I agree we couldn't end all of world hunger due to political reasons but we can definitely make a MASSIVE difference if we take a small amount out of our military budget.
Would you expect Iran, North Korea, or other countries to do the same?
Quote from: Jannabear on January 18, 2016, 02:56:38 AM
The Notion that everyone who's starving is under some dictatorship is silly.
I agree we couldn't end all of world hunger due to political reasons but we can definitely make a MASSIVE difference if we take a small amount out of our military budget.
I'm not arguing against that. However dictatorship is not accurate; there are plenty of democracies that would block their people from having food as well. We tend to view dictatorships as the 'ultimate evil' but really democracies and more 'good' forms of government are just as susceptible to evil and corruption as the evil and corruption being centred on one guy and his cronies.
When we take into account the number of corrupt non-dictatorships... the number of people affected sky rockets.
This is not a statement against doing good... rather just a statement that doing good is not as easy as just throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away.
I do disagree with Pr's last post though; we could vastly cut the military budget to spend on more productive internal and external affairs without crippling our ability to deal with developing-world "bad guys".
There are the oil producing countries who are awash with money, and the kings and princes are buying ridiculously expensive items like solid silver and diamond encrusted cars, yachts, private 747's and palaces with gold toilets. (see YouTube).
Why are they exempt from alleviating world hunger? Or even helping the poor in their own countries?
How about Dubai, the 'Las Vegas of the desert' (still empty as few can afford the price) built with virtually slave labor?
And as for the USA in the Middle East, please stop "helping" people. Done enough damage already.
QuoteThere are the oil producing countries who are awash with money, and the kings and princes are buying ridiculously expensive items like solid silver and diamond encrusted cars, yachts, private 747's and palaces with gold toilets. (see YouTube).
Why are they exempt from alleviating world hunger? Or even helping the poor in their own countries?
How about Dubai, the 'Las Vegas of the desert' (still empty as few can afford the price) built with virtually slave labor?
And as for the USA in the Middle East, please stop "helping" people. Done enough damage already.
I actually more or less agree with this as well. When I say we should spend our money on something better... I do mostly mean internal spending on helping our poor and middle class as well as our infrastructure and manufacturing or educational and science programs. Global poverty and hunger should be a global issue and not left up to one or two countries.
Quote from: Jannabear on January 18, 2016, 02:32:16 AM
We spend 570 billion+ On our military per year, the un estimated it would take 30 billion per year to end world hunger.
World poverty is in decline
http://www.cato.org/blog/dramatic-decline-world-poverty
QuoteUsing updated methodology, the World Bank recalculated poverty figures back to 1990. The new data track closely with previous Bank figures, which I use in the graph to show the fall in poverty since the early 1980s when 43 percent of the world’s population was extremely poor. The record on poverty reduction is consistent with the unprecedented progress that humanity has made around the world in the whole range of indicators of well-being, and which researchers and others can explore at HumanProgress.org.
The drop in poverty also coincides with a significant increase in global economic freedom, beginning with China’s reforms some 35 years ago and the globalization that followed the collapse of central planning in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As we celebrate this achievement and strive for further progress, we should not lose sight of the central role that voluntary exchange, freedom of choice, competition and protection of property play in ending privation.
The starving kid in Africa was a thing in the 1990s, but now mostly not true. There is enough food to feed everyone, the only problems are political ones largely fueled by global warming and conservative religions disrupting distribution of food.
Military spending world wide is currently less than it was. Historically in the U. S., the Republicans spend more for defense that Democrats. Under Clinton the U. S. Military was downsized and under Obama, the last couple of years has seen a down turn in military spending.
Nonetheless we still spend more for the military than most countries- The U. S. spends about 35% of all the money versus the rest of the world at 65%. Part of the downward trend in spending is focus on higher tech, more effective weapons that cost less. A guided bomb dropped from a B-52 or B-2 cost a fraction of a cruise missile, and is just as accurate. Similarly a round from a rail gun or high energy launch weapon is much cheaper than a "smart" round like what was used in the Gulf War. Bush spent more money on war than any president since WW2 and that is saying something, considering that Reagan sunk billions into Star Wars initiatives in the 80s.
Military spending is also linked to the economy because new weapons create new jobs, but that link is less so than before. More jobs currently are being created in new tech like solar than in petroleum and industry. Our focus should be on new tech and energy independence from petroleum.
I worked for the military for 28 of my 32 years in government. The "Golden toilet seat" is less true than before, but that had more to do with how materials are purchased than anything. The reason the golden toilet seat happened was because companies build their specific products to military spec, and everything was done by a bidding process. so a specific company that happened to build the right unit, or be able to conform to the spec became essentially a monopoly and could claim that meeting the specific specifications cost them money and was passed on to the military.
By changing the policies and allowing individual depots to opt for local purchase over Milspec, contract built products, costs were cut dramatically. Depots like Hill AFB where I worked have to account for their budgets. It actually does them no good to spend more. Depots bid against each other for repair of current or future equipment. Hill got the F-16 and now the F-35 as prime both for stationing the aircraft and Depot repair. They got the contracts because overall costs are less in Utah than in other states.
Quote from: pr126 on January 18, 2016, 03:12:18 AM
Would you expect Iran, North Korea, or other countries to do the same?
I don't really see why this is relevant?
Are they supposed to lead by example, or is this that we need to have a massive military argument
I'm confused about what you mean.
Quote from: pr126 on January 18, 2016, 03:24:11 AM
There are the oil producing countries who are awash with money, and the kings and princes are buying ridiculously expensive items like solid silver and diamond encrusted cars, yachts, private 747's and palaces with gold toilets. (see YouTube).
Why are they exempt from alleviating world hunger? Or even helping the poor in their own countries?
How about Dubai, the 'Las Vegas of the desert' (still empty as few can afford the price) built with virtually slave labor?
And as for the USA in the Middle East, please stop "helping" people. Done enough damage already.
Again, why the fuck does it matter if other countries don't want to help their people, we should do as much as possible regardless of what some psychopaths want to do.
World poverty should be a global concern, not just the one particular country you happen to live in.
Edit
There is enough poverty in the US to worry about.
Besides, the US is over $18 trillion in the red.
Sort that one out before you want to give other people's money away.
Jannabear - I admire your humanitarianism ... but like most discussions of this type ... they are pissing up wind. Neither you nor I run a government. So talking about what nations should or shouldn't do ... is a waste of time. What will you do? I hope you can find an outlet for your fine sentiments. I do what I can here and now for those I love. But the common good also makes its claim. The kleptocrats are mostly a loss as well ... they want their diamond encrusted bio-dome on Mars ... to get away from people like you and me ... because they are such ... humanitarians.
Make yourself available to do good ... find some person or organization to help who will let you ... if you get remuneration, you can always donate some of your cash to a good cause. If everyone did this, there would still be problems, but fewer of them.
Unfortunately humans in general, and human males in particular, are aggressive. It will always be necessary to expend resources against real, as opposed to imagined, risks. The US is saddled with the greatest contribution, because of WW II and what came before it. Generals are always fighting the previous war. On the other hand, rather than the government spending all that tax money, they could simply let the people keep it, and let the people can decide how to support the common good.
The ancients understood that you need weapons to secure food: you can't have one without the other. If the US retreats, the vacuum will be filled by other nations whose agenda is a lot more sinister than the US. Be content with the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 18, 2016, 08:44:10 AM
The ancients understood that you need weapons to secure food: you can't have one without the other. If the US retreats, the vacuum will be filled by other nations whose agenda is a lot more sinister than the US. Be content with the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
I welcome the iron rice bowl of our Chinese overlords ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 18, 2016, 09:17:03 AM
I welcome the iron rice bowl of our Chinese overlords ;-)
Take a hard look at Beijing, with its dense thick fog, the city has to close down every other day. I'll keep eating my pizza sans fumée...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 18, 2016, 08:44:10 AMThe ancients understood that you need weapons to secure food: you can't have one without the other.
Exactly. And I'd like to point out that the US produces enough of both for its own population and then some, so the "missiles or food" thing contains a false dichotomy. At any rate, the main problem right now isn't production, but distribution.
What isn't mentioned is that every penny of aid comes with extreme strings attached that always allows American corporations to have their way in whichever country receives the aid. Got a million starving people in your country? Sure, we'll feed them, but we get all the oil or whatever resources you happen to have.. Don't want to play ball? No problem..Our CIA will just overthrow your government.. Problem solved.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on January 18, 2016, 03:28:50 PM
What isn't mentioned is that every penny of aid comes with extreme strings attached that always allows American corporations to have their way in whichever country receives the aid. Got a million starving people in your country? Sure, we'll feed them, but we get all the oil or whatever resources you happen to have.. Don't want to play ball? No problem..Our CIA will just overthrow your government.. Problem solved.
This too... mentioned how corrupt other countries are without even addressing how corrupt we are as well.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 18, 2016, 11:10:10 AM
Exactly. And I'd like to point out that the US produces enough of both for its own population and then some, so the "missiles or food" thing contains a false dichotomy. At any rate, the main problem right now isn't production, but distribution.
The US produces enough food (until the oil runs out) to feed 600 millions per year. But distribution is solved, because the Chinese and Saudis are busy buying up the farm land, so that they can ship their food from their land, back to their country.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 18, 2016, 11:10:10 AM
Exactly. And I'd like to point out that the US produces enough of both for its own population and then some, so the "missiles or food" thing contains a false dichotomy. At any rate, the main problem right now isn't production, but distribution.
It's not only a problem NOW, it has always been a problem - regardless of the political system in place, the ruling class simply doesn't want to share with those at the bottom of the social ladder.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 19, 2016, 06:18:43 AM
It's not only a problem NOW, it has always been a problem - regardless of the political system in place, the ruling class simply doesn't want to share with those at the bottom of the social ladder.
Food provision is one of the ultimate means of control over people. Not just quantity, but quality ... hence my suspicion of GMO. Russia wants to be the world's biggest supplier of non-GMO, and China wants to be the basis of a new gold-backed international currency ... hence they must be destroyed.
Major edit ... I put GMO when I meant non-GMO ;-(
Quote from: pr126 on January 18, 2016, 05:20:14 AM
World poverty should be a global concern, not just the one particular country you happen to live in.
Edit
There is enough poverty in the US to worry about.
Besides, the US is over $18 trillion in the red.
Sort that one out before you want to give other people's money away.
30 billion is fucking nothing compared to our gdp.
We could cut 30 billion off of our MASSIVE
MASSIVE
MASSIVE
MASSIVE
......
MASSIVE
Military budget.
570 billion+ per year, pfft.
Yes, very well.
Now what do YOU intend to do about it? Other than ranting on the forum.
Your presidency is running out of steam Jannabear. The congress is owned by the kleptocracy so unless you're prepared to change the law to make being corrupt illegal your presidency will go down in history as just another wilting wallflower.. in the meantime corruption seems to be the flavor of the day and a damned popular flavor at that.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on January 19, 2016, 12:12:22 PM
Your presidency is running out of steam Jannabear. The congress is owned by the kleptocracy so unless you're prepared to change the law to make being corrupt illegal your presidency will go down in history as just another wilting wallflower.. in the meantime corruption seems to be the flavor of the day and a damned popular flavor at that.
Money has always been popular ... otherwise nobody would counterfeit it, not even governments. The first government counterfeiting was during the failure of Athens during the Peloponnesian War with Sparta. They had to make the first clad coins (like the present US quarter) because they were running out of silver ... it was copper with silver plating. The locals were heard to remark (in Greek) ... "Who produced this shit!" when the plating came off. Today we have US pennies that are zinc, with copper plating ... money just like Mom used to make back in the old days ;-) Examples of both genuine and fake drachmas of ancient Athens are still found today.
So not just corruption of the MIC ... something Socrates opposed, even though an uber-patriot. But near perpetual warfare, means you are going for broke, fast! I am sure some of the Athenians pocketed drachmas they hadn't earned ... in a place that actually paid you for jury duty. But the penalties were quite severe ;-( The Spartans, who won with treasonous outside Persian help ... just like the American colonists with French help, hated the very idea of money ... and only allowed iron rods as an intermediate barter. Spartans weren't supposed to be in trade, except for blood-letting on the battlefield. But gold coins from Persia were frequently attractive enough to even sway Spartan kings less hardened than Leonidas.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 18, 2016, 08:44:10 AM
The ancients understood that you need weapons to secure food: you can't have one without the other. If the US retreats, the vacuum will be filled by other nations whose agenda is a lot more sinister than the US. Be content with the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
We're a part of the fucking un.
And we have a MASSIVE
MASSIVE military.
We could have a military half the size we do now and still no country could fucking compete with us.
It's
fucking
massive.
We have a 570 billion dollar budget per year, that's almost as big as the rest of the world's military budgets combined.
Yet we look at other countries as being militarized.
Pfft.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 18, 2016, 11:10:10 AM
Exactly. And I'd like to point out that the US produces enough of both for its own population and then some, so the "missiles or food" thing contains a false dichotomy. At any rate, the main problem right now isn't production, but distribution.
But if you put money into it you can produce much more.
I don't know if you realize this, but money get's shit done, and we're wasting alot of it right now.
We have a military budget of 570 billion+ per year.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/59707205.jpg)
Jannabear ... the Nato military outlay, is for the attempt to control the whole world, not just N American and W Europe. It is a really big job, if you are crazy enough to want that objective.
That 534 billion is the defense baseline budget. OCO has been between 50-200 billion a year which is scheduled to stop in FY17. (though I have doubts about that) So, the total defense percentage of the federal budget is going down while the percentage of federal debt interest is on the rise. So, the defense budget is being cut due to the loss of OCO. Further cuts into defense will negatively impact installations which are essential to many areas' economies. The additional mission creep that has been leveraged on the DoD, such as defense support to civil authorities and the establishment of NORTHCOM would also be negatively impacted. So, FEMA would lose a large amount of capacity in emergency response. US support to international aid would also drop as the military would keep combat capabilities and capacities over those that are not linked to combat. The US military is not as combat focused as it was prior to 9/11 and the increased budget represents that.
Non-combat missions are one of the primary drivers of cost other than sustaining the new equipment developed for the recent wars. As an example, pre 9/11 flak jackets were cheep and could be thrown into storage and pulled out when needed. The public and military demanded bulletproof armor during OEF/OIF. The new armor presented additional costs to store and maintain. Flak jackets never had to be checked for microscopic cracks that could cause a loss of its bulletproof properties. Not only does the new armor cost more, it needs to be replaced more often than the old.
An additional cost driver to the DoD budget is driven by the number of personnel. Those numbers are currently being reduced to pre 9/11 levels.
My main point is that the defense spending is being cut more than 30 billion. But, it's not being used in the way the OP suggests. The problem with making a strait cut is that the budget normally does not drop missions. If real cuts need to be made to the DoD, then reduce the missions via cancelling National Strategies which require defense assets. Which National Strategies need to be adjusted to remove the military services?
Almost all of the National Strategies have a DoD role. Example: National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. It sounds like the DoD shouldn't be in there... but "As part of these efforts, the Department of Defense will maintain a repository of resistant bacterial strains and, as appropriate, will update procedures for specimen collection, storage, and data-sharing." "Antibiotics developed by DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency-sponsored program will submit pre-Emergency Use Authorization package in 2015" Another one is the National Response Framework which causes a large amount of defense spending.
I am not recommending that we actually reduce DoD mission space. My point is that the services expected by the DoD need to be dropped to really reduce defense spending. Though, there is wasteful spending within the DoD like any other federal organization. That always needs to be addressed.
I personally think that we need to get rid of that federal interest payment, and invest in sustainable infrastructure and technology that would be stolen by the rest of the world thus increasing the average quality of life for everyone.
You can't distribute food in some of the areas that need it the most without weapons and people trained to use them. Period. Otherwise other people with guns are going to take it away from you before it gets to the people that need it.
Having said that the US already contributes about 50% of the total food aid in the world. That's almost twice as much as the EU does on a similar economy. Step it Europe. You aren't doing your fair share.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21279.pdf
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 20, 2016, 04:31:43 PM
You can't distribute food in some of the areas that need it the most without weapons and people trained to use them. Period. Otherwise other people with guns are going to take it away from you before it gets to the people that need it.
Having said that the US already contributes about 50% of the total food aid in the world. That's almost twice as much as the EU does on a similar economy. Step it Europe. You aren't doing your fair share.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21279.pdf
EU = it is expensive keeping the German standard of living higher than the rest of Europe, even if they are making the Latins and Greeks pay for it ;-)
Jannabear wrote: QuoteWe could practically end world hunger if we spent a portion of what we spend on our military helping those who are starving.
A small portion.
Around 30 billion a year.
A few questions:
- Is that a one off, or a yearly sum in perpetuity?
Who would get the money, goods, food?
How would this be distributed (logistics, cost of distribution).
How would you make sure that only the needy gets the food?
How would you force corrupt governments to comply?
Why are you only concerned with the USA military spending and ignoring what the rest of the world does?
Finally, did you hear the saying:
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
[
PopeyesPappy wrote:QuoteStep it Europe. You aren't doing your fair share.
We are doing it too. Saving on logistics, we invite them to our countries by the millions for free living.
That is free housing, medical care, schooling, and a generous monthly welfare cheques.
They don't even have to work if they don't want to.
As a bonus, they can rape, plunder anyone they like.
In exchange we get the joy of diversity and multiculturalism.
Worth every Euro.
Quote from: Jannabear on January 19, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
30 billion is fucking nothing compared to our gdp.
We could cut 30 billion off of our MASSIVE
MASSIVE
MASSIVE
MASSIVE
......
MASSIVE
Military budget.
570 billion+ per year, pfft.
OK, let's say we gave 30 billion dollars to the government of Sudan. What guarantees do you have that Omar el-Bashir will not use the funds to buy more weapons and create a monopoly that will further impoverish the Sudanese population?
1. Having worked for the DOD, I can tell you that more money is wasted on pet projects foisted on the Pentagon by relevant weapons manufacturers and implementing new weapons systems (Boeing f-35 is so far over budget and running into so much trouble I'm amazed they haven't scrapped it). Overall, from the upkeep side, a depot like Hill where I worked is more cost efficient and cheaper than manufacture maintenance. The money wasted is from procurement (golden toilet seat; the F-35 definitely fits that category) and probably enough bribery and "special interest" dollars that never gets seen on any tally sheet. Billions get wasted you never see. The irony is the fed gov run bases are genuine money savers in comparison to Boeing's overhead and other costs they pass on to the DOD. You could save billions just by reforming the accounting process and making everybody involved accountable.
2. There is more than enough food produced annually by countries than needed to feed the world. As I've pointed out previously elsewhere, the problem is not production, the problem is the political corruption that either stops food from getting where it needs to go or simply letting it sit and rot in railroad cars. World poverty and hunger are actually in decline.
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/288229/icode/
Quote27 May 2015, Rome - The number of hungry people in the world has dropped to 795 million â€" 216 million fewer than in 1990-92 â€" or around one person out of every nine, according to the latest edition of the annual UN hunger report (The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015 - SOFI).
In the developing regions, the prevalence of undernourishment - which measures the proportion of people who are unable to consume enough food for an active and healthy life â€" has declined to 12.9 percent of the population, down from 23.3 percent a quarter of a century ago reports SOFI 2015, published today by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP).
A majority â€" 72 out of 129 â€" of the countries monitored by FAO have achieved the Millennium Development Goal target of halving the prevalence of undernourishment by 2015, with developing regions as a whole missing the target by a small margin. In addition, 29 countries have met the more ambitious goal laid out at the World Food Summit in 1996, when governments committed to halving the absolute number of undernourished people by 2015.
"The near-achievement of the MDG hunger targets shows us that we can indeed eliminate the scourge of hunger in our lifetime. We must be the Zero Hunger generation. That goal should be mainstreamed into all policy interventions and at the heart of the new sustainable development agenda to be established this year," said FAO Director General José Graziano da Silva.
It isn't as bleak as many people make it out to be. Get rid of all the political corruption and the problem will solve itself.
(http://previews.123rf.com/images/stockbroker/stockbroker0808/stockbroker080802049/3443931-Deli-Sub-Sandwich-on-a-Chopping-Board-Stock-Photo-pizza.jpg)
Torpedos are more important! Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
(it's a torpedo submarine sandwich. Get it? get it? eh? ehh??? ok. I give up... Sorry about the puns. I didn't get much sleep last night due to my friend's going away party)
The idea that we could solve world hunger with some minuscule reduction to our defense budget is ridiculous. If that were really possible, some president with a hardon for making his legacy would have found a way to make it happen. Obviously its not just a matter of funding.
This is a very interesting thread. Except kilo's way of looking at it, I honestly can't understand the logic of people's perspective about the subject. I am just reading the thread but cannot place anything anywhere. It's like reactions are floating in the air.
First of all the title. It's a question. It's asking if food or missiles are more important and the aim of OP is telling that the ridiculous amount of money is spent on military can be used for the good of humanity...etc. OK. Yes. But, I don't think it is even valid in the context, only may be if you are expressing a sentimental wish for humanity -which I guess we all share- in a frame of some US centered utopia.
You are discussing about help, aid for the world...related to the US military expenses. :lol: Every US policy, domestic or international, RUNS on the military power and the circulation of money/resources around the world to support that so it could expand the very process. It's the main US industry.
American culture is a militarist culture. Even the gun issue is directly related to this culture in a different level. The social paranoia in individual and societal scale is based on this. It is also a huge job sector in and out, from invasions to the most simple passive duties domestic or abroad. Student loans countless, militarised jobs...military research, engineering...tec.
Guys, what are you talking about? Yeah it sounds beautiful, pecaeful, progressive and all, but if you strip the USA from its military power; expenses there would be nothing left.
Also I hate to remind it, but doesn't matter how much you are not involved as an individual, this base for American culture and power is also the part of your very own identity. American identity. I don't mean you approve or disapprove; or you are this and that, I mean this is not something like a jacket that you could take off or exist outside of it. No monstrous budget, no monstrous army, no USA as you know it. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, it is just the idea is soaring in the air. It's fantasy.
Also, people of the world are not chickens to feed in some back yard and build shelters for them to protect and herd. It doesn't work. This very idea screwed up everything. Because as the idea of helping others without an agenda cannot become real, it's just another tool for control and dictate.
Shoe - much more reasoned, less emotional compared to last Fall. You are exactly correct, that Americans, at least since 1942, are militarized, on a permanent war footing. Both internal war and external war. Blame my parents and grandparents ... and the Axis and the Communists too. Without them, we would have an Army of 100,000 in the US, practicing with wooden guns (as we did prior to 1942). In the end, the need to defeat the Axis and stonewall Communism has twisted America out of recognition compared to the 1930s ... and some of that is good. One of my great-uncles was still farming with a mule in the 1930s, and had his wheat hailed out two years in a row. Ah, the good old days, when British colonialism etc reigned supreme, before the Royals committed suicide in Sarajevo.
Quote from: Jannabear on January 20, 2016, 11:22:04 AM
But if you put money into it you can produce much more.
I don't know if you realize this, but money get's shit done, and we're wasting alot of it right now.
We have a military budget of 570 billion+ per year.
You haven't looked lately - it is obvious. Or you are simply trying to make a political point.
The world is awash in basic commodities to make food. We have more corn, rice, barley, wheat and soybeans in storage than you could ever imagine - Ending stocks, after all use this year, will be over 1.8 billion bushels of corn alone - each bushel of corn is approximately 60 US pounds. The world is producing more pork, chicken, and beef than ever before - again ending stocks after use skyrocketed last year. Getting that out of storage and in use would certainly end a lot of hunger.
The problem truly is distribution - and you want us to produce more? The US price of corn and soybeans has been below production cost for 3 years in a row now. We have so much wheat that farmers planted 3 million fewer acres this year (10% of total US production) - and the grain markets don't think it is enough to relieve the oversupply.
There is a case to be made to reduce the military budget, but it seems rather silly to tie it to global food shortages... especially when there is a record amount of basic food commodities in storage right now all over the world.
And it has been proven time and time again that giving money intended for food distribution does not work in many countries. They truly want their people starving... for whatever reason.
Here is another fact, due to the plummet in diesel fuel - the cost of transportation of these commodities is now cheaper than it has been in ten years.
So at a time when we have more food in storage than ever before in human history, and we have the cheapest shipping charges in a decade, we still have people starving.
The issue is decidedly not more money thrown at the problem of food production, IMO.
@ GreatLife
Good points
The problem of famine is ladled with several endemic issues: lack of infrastructure like roads and storage facilities; frequent war and displacement; overwhelming dependence on livelihoods that are disrupted by natural disaster or climate change, lack of educational facilities and educational accessibility.
Good post, GreatLife.
Quote from: Baruch on January 19, 2016, 07:11:17 PM
Money has always been popular ... otherwise nobody would counterfeit it, not even governments. The first government counterfeiting was during the failure of Athens during the Peloponnesian War with Sparta. They had to make the first clad coins (like the present US quarter) because they were running out of silver ... it was copper with silver plating. The locals were heard to remark (in Greek) ... "Who produced this shit!" when the plating came off. Today we have US pennies that are zinc, with copper plating ... money just like Mom used to make back in the old days ;-) Examples of both genuine and fake drachmas of ancient Athens are still found today.
So not just corruption of the MIC ... something Socrates opposed, even though an uber-patriot. But near perpetual warfare, means you are going for broke, fast! I am sure some of the Athenians pocketed drachmas they hadn't earned ... in a place that actually paid you for jury duty. But the penalties were quite severe ;-( The Spartans, who won with treasonous outside Persian help ... just like the American colonists with French help, hated the very idea of money ... and only allowed iron rods as an intermediate barter. Spartans weren't supposed to be in trade, except for blood-letting on the battlefield. But gold coins from Persia were frequently attractive enough to even sway Spartan kings less hardened than Leonidas.
I read that the reason the penny is no longer pure copper (other than pure copper is too soft) is because clowns were hording pennies and trying to melt them down to sell at the scrap yards.. They could be made from glass it really doesn't matter. If anyone thinks paper should be more valuable than copper clad zinc they would be right. The same size paper is used from the $1 bill through every other denomination. It's not AS IF a $1000 bill is 1000 times bigger or thicker.. The only difference is the image used.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on January 31, 2016, 07:18:55 PM
I read that the reason the penny is no longer pure copper (other than pure copper is too soft) is because clowns were hording pennies and trying to melt them down to sell at the scrap yards.. They could be made from glass it really doesn't matter. If anyone thinks paper should be more valuable than copper clad zinc they would be right. The same size paper is used from the $1 bill through every other denomination. It's not AS IF a $1000 bill is 1000 times bigger or thicker.. The only difference is the image used.
Pure copper isn't used for money ever ... only bronze (copper plus tin etc). Pure copper is to soft and doesn't age well. Pretty much, copper hoarding hasn't happened outside of China ... they have been using metals other than gold or silver to back their currency. Their ancient "cash" money was usually made of bronze. Bronze is poor people money, silver for the merchant class, and gold for the royalty.
Of course it is funny, that while you and I can agree that Santa Claus isn't real, the Matrix says that equivalent sizes of paper money are not only worth unequal amounts according to the writing on them, we even agree that the paper money is worth anything at all. And now with digital money, which is most money ... it is just entries on a special spreadsheet ledger. Modern paper money, like modern paper, was the invention of China, the Southern Sung Dynasty in particular. The Yuan or Mongol Dynasty that conquered the Sung Dynasty ... made it quite clear on the paper itself, why you should accept it in lieu of "cash" ... strings of bronze coins in 1000 units. Silver was only available in ingots (called tael) and gold was only available to the Emperor. To whit ... anyone who fails to accept the face value of this government receipt ... will face the displeasure of the Great Khan, up to including the decapitation of the rebel and his whole family. That is why we accept digital money today ...
Quote from: Baruch on February 01, 2016, 12:33:26 AM
Pure copper isn't used for money ever ... only bronze (copper plus tin etc).
Pre 1983 US minted pennies aren't bronze. They are a 95% copper 5% tin/other alloy. You have to have about 12% tin for the alloy to be considered bronze.
The problem with 95% copper pennies as scrap is the secondary copper market only trades for about half of the spot market. At today's spot prices $2.06/lb 1000 ($10 face value) pre 83 pennies would be worth about $13.44. On the secondary market you would probably only get $6-7 dollars for the copper. If copper was to go up to $3.50/lb on the spot market you could probably get $11-11.50 on the secondary market for your $10 worth of pennies. About 5 years ago copper peaked at around $4.50/lb. At that time you probably could have gotten about $15 for your $10 worth of 95% copper pennies.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 01, 2016, 11:48:45 AM
Pre 1983 US minted pennies aren't bronze. They are a 95% copper 5% tin/other alloy. You have to have about 12% tin for the alloy to be considered bronze.
The problem with 95% copper pennies as scrap is the secondary copper market only trades for about half of the spot market. At today's spot prices $2.06/lb 1000 ($10 face value) pre 83 pennies would be worth about $13.44. On the secondary market you would probably only get $6-7 dollars for the copper. If copper was to go up to $3.50/lb on the spot market you could probably get $11-11.50 on the secondary market for your $10 worth of pennies. About 5 years ago copper peaked at around $4.50/lb. At that time you probably could have gotten about $15 for your $10 worth of 95% copper pennies.
We should scrap paper/coin money entirely, and just have debit/credit cards. That would be such a bombshell to that practice, notwithstanding all the drug dealers...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 01, 2016, 11:53:37 AM
We should scrap paper/coin money entirely, and just have debit/credit cards.
I don't know, then I wouldn't have a excuse to the hookers..."sorry, ain't got no cash"...now they swing their phone at me and swipe it.......er....... not that I know any hookers........er.......carry on.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 01, 2016, 11:53:37 AM
We should scrap paper/coin money entirely, and just have debit/credit cards. That would be such a bombshell to that practice, notwithstanding all the drug dealers...
I was about to say as long as I don't get a GPS tracking microchip implanted in my ass I'd be ok with that. Then I remembered that after the April 2011 tornadoes knocked out the power to pretty much everything in Alabama north of the Tennessee river for most of a week you couldn't buy a case of water or a bag of ice without cash unless you drove 50 miles first and decided it probably isn't a great idea.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 01, 2016, 12:02:06 PM
I was about to say as long as I don't get a GPS tracking microchip implanted in my ass I'd be ok with that. Then I remembered that after the April 2011 tornadoes knocked out the power to pretty much everything in Alabama north of the Tennessee river for most of a week you couldn't buy a case of water or a bag of ice without cash unless you drove 50 miles first and decided it probably isn't a great idea.
Either you move out of Alabama or demand better power lines. How can you stand that?!? ;-)
Actually we have a quite robust power system here in Huntsville. We have 3 main feeds. One from the west that is powered by both a nuclear plant and hydro. One from the east that is powered by both a nuclear plant, hydro and coal. One from the north that's mostly a coal fired grid. unfortunately between the the EF-5 to the west/north and an EF-4 to the east we lost a total of 254 of the big high tension power line towers on all three paths. I give the utilities a lot of credit for getting most people's power back up in less than a week.
(http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/images/thumb/2/24/April_2011_tornado_tracks.png/575px-April_2011_tornado_tracks.png)
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 01, 2016, 12:19:36 PM
Actually we have a quite robust power system here in Huntsville. We have 3 main feeds. One from the west that is powered by both a nuclear plant and hydro. One from the east that is powered by both a nuclear plant, hydro and coal. One from the north that's mostly a coal fired grid. unfortunately between the the EF-5 to the west/north and an EF-4 to the east we lost a total of 254 of the big high tension power line towers on all three paths. I give the utilities a lot of credit for getting most people's power back up in less than a week.
(http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/images/thumb/2/24/April_2011_tornado_tracks.png/575px-April_2011_tornado_tracks.png)
What is needed are towers that can withstand level 5 tornadoes.
http://www.industrytap.com/can-buildings-withstand-level-5-tornadoes/7229 (http://www.industrytap.com/can-buildings-withstand-level-5-tornadoes/7229)
or better build the lines underground.
Where that pink line crosses the Tennessee river is about two miles from TVA's Browns Ferry nuclear plant. It has three GE BWR mark III reactors similar in design but much larger than reactor 1 at Fukushima and a shit load of spent fuel in storage. That's how close we came to having a lot bigger problems than no power for a few days.
When the plant lost power from the grid all three reactors were scrammed. That and what happened at Fukushima have made me wonder why a F'in nuclear power plant can't make it's own power to run the cooling pumps...
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 01, 2016, 11:48:45 AM
Pre 1983 US minted pennies aren't bronze. They are a 95% copper 5% tin/other alloy. You have to have about 12% tin for the alloy to be considered bronze.
The problem with 95% copper pennies as scrap is the secondary copper market only trades for about half of the spot market. At today's spot prices $2.06/lb 1000 ($10 face value) pre 83 pennies would be worth about $13.44. On the secondary market you would probably only get $6-7 dollars for the copper. If copper was to go up to $3.50/lb on the spot market you could probably get $11-11.50 on the secondary market for your $10 worth of pennies. About 5 years ago copper peaked at around $4.50/lb. At that time you probably could have gotten about $15 for your $10 worth of 95% copper pennies.
It is illegal to melt down current coins, for their metal content. This also applies to that billionaire who has all those nickels. My ... you do split hairs ;-) If the alloying agent is zinc, it isn't bronze it is brass. But then you got a lot of brass, don't you ;-))
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 01, 2016, 11:53:37 AM
We should scrap paper/coin money entirely, and just have debit/credit cards. That would be such a bombshell to that practice, notwithstanding all the drug dealers...
Can't wait for auto debit to the tax authorities ... or they can just take all the money, and dole it out to their political buddies. The biggest drug dealer since colonial times, is the government (who makes money thru taxes on it). So yes, a debit card, that only I have access to would be fine ... but I don't trust any bank, business or government with anything of mine.