Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (94705)	2/25/2009 11:50:28 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 116555

Well I think you're wrong but for a different reason. I don't much care why we invaded all these little countries - some claim resources, some claim for ideology. The invasions were wrong because the rest of the world thinks we are wrong and because the cost is so high that it weakens America. Your not addressing the point under contention. I could argue about the invasions being wrong (perhaps not all of them, but at least some of them), but that's not a conversation I want to have here, and more importantly it wasn't the subject under debate. The claim was not "they are wrong", but rather that they where examples of ""annihilating 3rd world powers, slaughtering their citizens, stealing their resources...etc. etc. etc.", and examples of "massive holocausts that we have perpetuated". Every great empire flounders when it stretches too far. We are at that point now IMO. I'd disagree with the characterization of the US as an empire, but that's a side point that would generate a whole new conversation. Getting to the main point, we may or may not be doing things that are seriously wrong (again that's not really a conversation I want to have here, but I would discuss it elsewhere if you want). But saying that our military expenditures are stretching the country too far, is itself a rather severe stretch. We supported putting a larger, often much larger, percentage of our resources in to the military for decades. The general trend has been downward for over six and a half decades. Comparing peaks to peaks you have over a third of the economy going to the military in WWII, close to twelve percent in Korea, about 9 percent in Vietnam, about 6% at the peak of Reagan's buildup, and about four and a half percent both in the Gulf War, and now (note this is including the "supplemental bills", not just the main military budget total). Another argument for overstretched is not that our economy can't support the military, but that our military itself can't support the war effort. Some, not entirely unreasonable, arguments have been made along those lines, but out military is only overstretched compared to our desires for its near perfection, not compared to its status in past wars. Also that stretch is declining with the success in Iraq, and such overstretch, even if it where to occur, would not exactly be a existential, or even extremely serious long term threat to the US as a whole (but it would be very hard on our military personnel, I'm not arguing it wouldn't be a serious issue).