Page 2 of 2 First 12

It depends. Actually finding the answers to your queries has done much to educate me about the Byzantine world of "what counts".

The first bug bear is Social Security; does the author consider it "on budget" or "off budget"? Not a question I even thought to ask initially. The gov't has it "on budget" as of LBJ; critics of this accounting change seem to feel the rationale behind the change was to mask military spending behind a large social expenditure from a self funding program. A program still apparently in surplus, but not for long. So I guess one must ascertain a source's position on this point; as well as questioning whether or not different sources make different assumptions in this regard when calculating "x" as a % of budgetary expenditure.

The second question is: what counts as military spending? Again, different sources count different things. DoD budget alone; Homeland Security?; counter-terrorism expenditures by the FBI? contracting of services to civilian companies for security operations? The difference in "what counts" changes the figure from ~600 billion to over 1 trillion.

So yes, I will have to examine exactly what a source means in terms of "the budget" and "military expenditure"; and will expect no less from others:p

Reply

If you are paying for it, it is on your budget, whether you "write it down" or not. This is not a subject for debate, arguing otherwise would be silly.

I don't understand what you are talking about. We know what counts as military spending, the CBO tells us what falls under military spending in the budget. Why don't we actually look up last years budget and give it a good read. It may prove enlightening to some of your questions.

Reply

It has seemed to me for some time that rather than the old adage "All Empires fall", it would be far more apt to say "All Empires think they are falling."

Take for instance Rome; Even before the Republic fell, there are writers like Sallust who hammered on about moral decline and how the old days were better and, when the Republic and later the Empire fell, people nodded sagely and said "Ah yes, our morality has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." Let's face it, nostalgia for an earlier, simpler time is a pretty strong motivator for a great many people and this is just an extension of that. In reality, their morality was not slipping and any person who held that opinion today would be roundly ridiculed. But reality matters little to people who are observing the past looking for evidence of why their perceived present is so poor.

Those Americans who claim that America is 'falling' are just saying what seems obvious to them with their nostalgia-tinted glasses. They are just saying it differently (though people do still hammer on and on about moral decline). In this case they are just putting it within the modern discourse that makes sense to them - they are seeking out statistics and figures that seem to confirm their view, nodding sagely and saying "Ah yes, our economy has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." The statistics don't back them up, but that matters little because it isn't the statistics that are confirming their worldview - it is their view of a past where America was on top of the world.

Reply

Emergency spending is not part of the POTUS budget...

Reply

Fine, so it is all perspective and we actually do not have any insurmountable problems as a nation. I just hope that the pessimism lasts for a few more months, since the U.S. is in such great shape and all and will probably never be in decline, so no real risk. If we can win the narrative in an election year that the country is going to hell in a hand-basket, we win. The administration will be serving up alot of red meat for the voters, it is already almost palpable, so if we just deny him every opportunity at success and it works, we will do well. I personally believe that the Congress serves more of a purpose at this stage in our national development in opposing as many Federal initiatives as possible anyway, so why not hyper-target the ones that the President puts out there which are almost sure to be wrongheaded. If a problem really is big enough, absolute Federal failure to resolve it may cause individuals and States to give it a shot instead of just fawning over a (perceived only, of course) failed Presidency.

Reply

Agreed. In fact, he's completely wrong. America has always done well under a peace time economy and traditionally been horrible during wartime.

A simple understanding of American history would reveal this.

Reply

This is the probably one of the scariest polemic's I have read on the org the use of "WE" in particular is very interesting.

Course if you want a real scare pray your not an SME in Ireland/UK or the wider EU in a few years time


€175m Asian trade hub in Athlone would create up to 1,500 jobs

Reply

Decline, as I said, is discursive and by definition it is relative. You are not improving, nor declining, simply changing. Opinions on if this is for the better or for the worse are just that - opinions. My point is not whether those things are good or bad, and you seem to have misunderstood that. my point is that the whole notion of decline (as an historiographical reading of the present relative to the past) is a vaunted idea that has no firm basis in reality. To "read" all of a nation's woes against a narrative of decline is to imbue them with a power that they do not have. We can argue individual policies all we like, but the moment they are emploted against a narrative of decline, then the debate over policy will instead become a debate over the direction of the narrative - a debate that simply deepens the dichotomy between those who think the nation is in decline and those who think that it is not.

Reply

And as you go on to point out, it polarizes the discussion. Very useful for political posturing however divorced from reality, and can be repeated endlessly until one is eventually right or dead. The assignment of labels is very useful since who wants to be in a camp perceived as "leading us all to oblivion". Thank you for highlighting an interesting trick of language.

Reply

agreed, america is the archtype of the open and innovative society, therefore it will be among the most adaptable to the challenges that all nations face throughout the course of the timespan.

more adaptable nations have a longer timespan, all other things being equal.

Reply

Really? I thought it was Norway and Canada.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-dictatorships

Reply

I fully expect to have to eat my children. IF I CAN AFFORD TO HAVE THEM

I'm not worried. Our biggest problems are one creditor holding 10% of our doubt and one speculative agency speculating that our speculative credit rating got a little worse.

Reply

Meh that same creditor needs basic ore and gas from one of your most erstwhile allies.

The creditor is also running a trade deficit with them too, so whilst it could hurt your ally... Your ally could taper off energy exports in favour of Japan and India.

Reply

What bothers me the most in threads like these is that no one takes care to make the distinction between a relative failure and an absolute failure.

I disagree with CountArach when he declares that all failures are relative, but agree completely that simply listing all the failures with a serious voice bestows a connotation and inference of an oncoming apocalypse. When we make comparisons between nations on certain points from anything ranging from our amounts of "free speech" to how expansive our internet/broadband penetration's are, we need to check ourselves and ask if we are our finding ourselves lacking in a certain aspect because of a flawed choice that we as a nation through our government's policies have made or because of a systematic incentive/oversight inherently in our structure that we must actively recognize and rout.

This is why I am not worried about China. I am not really worried about the future of gay marriage. These situations that the US finds itself in amounts to nothing more than a football (hand-egg) coach getting flustered over a rival's new defense and slowly figuring out how to work around the problem. They are temporary, and will be relegated to obscure economics and sociology textbooks 100 years from now. China has the upper hand right now? Great, we will see if a totalitarian dictatorship has more flexibility than a liberal democracy. Let's get real here. If there is one thing I learned in Civilization 4, it's that Golden Ages are great....until they end and you find out what the definition of overextended means, and your great expansion is followed by a contraction in every sense including hubris, and Gandhi's AI is threatening to nuke you and Napoleon is holding the only source of uranium on the damn map, refusing to make any trade because heaven forbid you share a border with them which makes you public enemy #1, even though you have been nothing but accommodating to them because in all honesty, they had **** land until they rolled big with the uranium discoveries in the modern age, errr, I got off track here.

Anyway, the real challenges that we must talk about are few and far between, but talking about these red herrings as if America is going to fall soon due to the size of an MIC is just silly. America's main strength has always been a flexibility in the long term partly in due to our large land size, federalist structure, and heterogeneous demographics. The real decline of America will be the absolute failure of removing systems in place that limit or prohibit our use of these such strengths.

I could argue that some of the real systematic problems that we must really talk about when discussing American decline are an overabundance of pride and money in politics. And of course, Sasaki will come in and accuse me of having Judeo-Christian tainted thought and Panzer or Crazed Rabbit will come in to smack me down about the "dangers" of money in our political system. But nevertheless, those are the conversations we should be having, and those are the conversations I try to get involved in and discuss. I jerk around in the gay marriage thread with those I disagree with, but I will gladly discuss the implications of national pride and bragging with Sasaki.

This is a 1AM rant that is probably going to sound really stupid when I wake up, but whatever, I felt like opening my mouth because I can't stand hearing one more person on Facebook cry to everyone "Brb, moving to China or India to get my jobs back. Bye bye America! It was a good 200 years!"

I would have said something about race relations in here as well to placate Strike, but all my information about current US race relations comes from WorldStarHipHop and I like to read multiple biased sources before I run my mouth.

Reply

Just wanted to come by here and post this nice looking graph. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...ing-in-1-graph

I think it puts a nail in the coffin for the argument about the danger of the MIC taking over america's fiscal policies. 51.7% military spending at 18% of GDP in 1962 is 9.3% of GDP going to the military. Today we have 22.6% of 24% of GDP which is 5.424% of GDP going to the military.

So pretty much since the 1960s we have actually seen the MIC shrink by a factor of 1.7.

Reply

The problem with taking the proportion of GDP is that the economy has grown by more than a factor of 1.7 in the past 50 years.

Thus: Defense spending is higher under Obama than it was under Eisenhower (adjusted for inflation).

Heck, it was higher even under Clinton.

Reply

You are correct, because of the economy, the MIC is getting more nowadays relatively than in decades past in terms of "resources" (AKA dollars) when we account for inflation. But I think that that particular point misses what the actual worry over the MIC is about. It isn't so much that the MIC is growing at all, but that it has too much control over the amount of resources it gets from Congress and the White House, that it has the potential to be a runaway spending monster, like conservatives claim about Medicare, SS and the other social welfare programs.

When we have deduced that the MIC has grown not because of government influence and lobbying but because of the strength of our economy, or maybe capitalism in general, it still imo, brings the hammer down on the notion that we will see all of our money going towards R&D for bigger guns in the coming decades. I would think that no one has a problem that our military has been getting bigger because we simply have more resources/capital/(whatever the proper term is) to go around. It would be like complaining about how your significant other continues to buy bigger TV's over the years even though his paycheck has been increasing far beyond the expenses he is putting into having the biggest TV on the block. Unless I am overlooking something completely.

Reply

~90% growth in spending over a decade is pretty significant.

Also, don't conflate the federal defense budget with the MIC.

A very strange thing to say.

The MIC itself, as an interest group, is not in a category separate from agribusiness or Big Oil or the AARP, in terms of influence. The military-loving demographics are much stronger in that. I took issue with your claim that the MIC has shrunk, and that military spending has no potential for "runaway" growth.

Reply

But not when everything has kept up or surpassed that. My point is that military spending relative to the overall resource allocation in the given time frame has dropped. You have a 6 inch diameter pie and half of it is military. You have an 18 inch diameter pie and 25% of it is military. Yes the second piece of pie is bigger, but it's ratio in respect to the whole pie is a lot smaller, which is what counts when we are talking about the influence of the military lobby not about the size of the military.

The military budget is at the core of it. Eisenhower shorted the Military-Industrial Complex from the original name he gave it, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Congress is at the heart of it.


I don't see what is so strange at all.

It has shrunk relative to the overall allocation of Federal spending. Absolute size means nothing when you have already pointed out, that that is due to 50 years of capitalism doing what it does best and not from lobbying.

Reply

To clarify: I fnd it strange that you consider the expansion of the military budget surrounding the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan a natural result of the growth of the economy. Even stranger, that you believe no one objects to these expenditures.

I never took you for a neo-con, ACIN.

Let's say, a distinction between the federal contracts with Boeing and the salaries of Army personnel, for example.

I think you may have simply clumsily wrded a response to a misinterpretation of my post. As I said, I am not presently interested in the influence of the MIC. Take another look at the last few posts.

Reply

You were the one that brought up the fact about the economy growing to negate my point about % of GDP. I was simply basing my points off of what you said. Obviously, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq have inflated the military budget. But now as we see Iraq behind us (more or less) and Afghanistan planned out (end of 2014 we are leaving?) I would think that the 10-15 year period post-9/11 is going to be more of an outlier in an otherwise consistent trend of military spending as a % of our GDP continue to decline even as the Federal budget may (or may not) get bigger over the coming years.

Obviously people don't like this outlier, many haven't since the first months after Iraq when we started to have our "oops" realization. But I was mainly referring to the idea that a department of government has grown in size because we have a larger pie to divide up then we did in the past. I don't think that people have a problem with that kind of scenario playing out, because it's really the percentages that matter because the percentages in a budget more or less tell you what the priorities of a country are.

Say it ain't so Monty.


I see. We have been talking past each other. Or perhaps, I am talking without reading first. My original point was about the influence of the MIC and how it is overstated using the original chart I posted as proof. You are making a point about the size of it, and you are right in saying it is larger when accounting for inflation and all that today than it was in the past. What I am not picking up from your past posts, is the significance or point behind that statement. If you are not using that fact as a point about the influence of the MIC, where are you going with this information?

Reply

Very interesting thread. Most of you are wrong.

I can scout property for you guys when I make the Grand Exodus, maybe even keep a room above the garage for Orgahs.

Reply

Page 2 of 2 First 12