Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[HeloDude]

7 minutes ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Isolationism, "Europe's problem, no way that'll get to us"...haven't we as Americans learned that lesson twice?  More?

And those 'complicated alliances' have thus far kept us out of WWIII, through all the nastiness of the Cold War and beyond.  Why is Russia pissed at the idea of the Swedes and Finns joining NATO?  They lose their ability to threaten and bully their neighbor, and walk right in when they don't get their way.  Alliances are not perfect, Germany's obscene 'elephant walk' of Eurofighters where they had to tow a good portion onto the runway to stage the photo because they were all NMC is emblematic of the problem...but that doesn't mean you don't adjust or fix those things, and not junk the whole thing altogether.

And I'd say security is worth paying for, unless you like Novorossiya.  And opposing that (a new Russian Empire) is a pretty fucking clear objective.

So why do we need a massive defense budget if we have the alliance to protect us?  Iceland spends next to nothing on defense and yet they’re protected by NATO.  Sounds like we should go that route if alliances are all they’re cracked up to be.

[FLEA]

2 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So why do we need a massive defense budget if we have the alliance to protect us?  Iceland spends next to nothing on defense and yet they’re protected by NATO.  Sounds like we should go that route if alliances are all they’re cracked up to be.

Agree. I don't mind being in NATO if we spend the same as Iceland. Let's do that. We can still help Europe, well just help them as much as they help themselves. 

 

[FLEA]

12 minutes ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Isolationism, "Europe's problem, no way that'll get to us"...haven't we as Americans learned that lesson twice?  More?

And those 'complicated alliances' have thus far kept us out of WWIII, through all the nastiness of the Cold War and beyond.  Why is Russia pissed at the idea of the Swedes and Finns joining NATO?  They lose their ability to threaten and bully their neighbor, and walk right in when they don't get their way.  Alliances are not perfect, Germany's obscene 'elephant walk' of Eurofighters where they had to tow a good portion onto the runway to stage the photo because they were all NMC is emblematic of the problem...but that doesn't mean you don't adjust or fix those things, and not junk the whole thing altogether.

And I'd say security is worth paying for, unless you like Novorossiya.  And opposing that (a new Russian Empire) is a pretty fucking clear objective.

Opposing Russia is nowhere in the NATO charter. Not all NATO countries are staunchly anti-Russia. 

[Prozac]

6 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So why do we need a massive defense budget if we have the alliance to protect us?  Iceland spends next to nothing on defense and yet they’re protected by NATO.  Sounds like we should go that route if alliances are all they’re cracked up to be.

'Cause being the biggest player in the game means you get to make the rules.  I like living in a world where the United States is THE leader when it comes to influencing global values, especially when Russia and China badly want to replace us in that regard.

[Clayton Bigsby]

You both miss my point completely.  Russia over the past two months has presented Exhibit A of why that alliance exists and should continue to do so, and has likely completely upended the past 30 years' worth of arguments you're both sticking with.  It's not all over yet, based on the last 30 years your points are not without merit and the follow through from Germany and others is obviously key.

But look at how the world was reshaped post WWII, and how prosperous that has been for everyone, and then take a look at those who lived under the Soviet boot and see the deep scars there.  Pretty sure I know how I'd like the world to be molded.  Don't cede that, or you'll be back again.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Clayton Bigsby

[Clayton Bigsby]

But I think expecting Icelandic industry to produce a stealth bomber, for example, is completely unrealistic.

[Tank]

On 5/14/2022 at 1:44 PM, arg said:

Was it Pope that had the A-10s with the teeth painted on them?

Yes and now they’re at Moody.  
 

World Famous Flying Tigers!  

ATTACK and THUNDER!!

[HeloDude]

19 minutes ago, Prozac said:

'Cause being the biggest player in the game means you get to make the rules.  I like living in a world where the United States is THE leader when it comes to influencing global values, especially when Russia and China badly want to replace us in that regard.

$30.5 TRILLION in debt…

[HeloDude]

12 minutes ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

But I think expecting Icelandic industry to produce a stealth bomber, for example, is completely unrealistic.

But they’re in NATO, are they not?  I thought being in NATO is what protects these countries? 

[FLEA]

17 minutes ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

You both miss my point completely.  Russia over the past two months has presented Exhibit A of why that alliance exists and should continue to do so, and has likely completely upended the past 30 years' worth of arguments you're both sticking with.  It's not all over yet, based on the last 30 years your points are not without merit and the follow through from Germany and others is obviously key.

But look at how the world was reshaped post WWII, and how prosperous that has been for everyone, and then take a look at those who lived under the Soviet boot and see the deep scars there.  Pretty sure I know how I'd like the world to be molded.  Don't cede that, or you'll be back again.

Sorry did I miss it? Was a NATO partner attacked by Russia in the last two months? 

[Prozac]

22 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

$30.5 TRILLION in debt…

What percentage of that debt is attributable to what we're talking about? Whatever the number is, it's a good deal if it means maintaining global peace and stability. And don't think for a minute that the Chinese wouldn't be more than happy to take on that debt in our absence and immediately exploit the ensuing power vacuum to spread their brand of "governance" and influence far and wide.  The world starts to be a real drag, real quick if we abdicate our role in it.

[FLEA]

15 minutes ago, Prozac said:

What percentage of that debt is attributable to what we're talking about? Whatever the number is, it's a good deal if it means maintaining global peace and stability. And don't think for a minute that the Chinese wouldn't be more than happy to take on that debt in our absence and immediately exploit the ensuing power vacuum to spread their brand of "governance" and influence far and wide.  The world starts to be a real drag, real quick if we abdicate our role in it.

In what world is societal economic collapse from excessive debt absorption  considered security? 

[HeloDude]

24 minutes ago, Prozac said:

What percentage of that debt is attributable to what we're talking about? Whatever the number is, it's a good deal if it means maintaining global peace and stability. And don't think for a minute that the Chinese wouldn't be more than happy to take on that debt in our absence and immediately exploit the ensuing power vacuum to spread their brand of "governance" and influence far and wide.  The world starts to be a real drag, real quick if we abdicate our role in it.

“Whatever the number is”…that should tell you that it’s high.  I’m much more concerned about our own economic problems threatening us than I am Russia or China.

But again, if we’re in NATO, then why do we need a massive defense budget?  And if we need a massive defense budget, then why do we need NATO when other counties (Iceland as the easy example) pays next to nothing for defense?

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

But look at how the world was reshaped post WWII, and how prosperous that has been for everyone, and then take a look at those who lived under the Soviet boot and see the deep scars there.  Pretty sure I know how I'd like the world to be molded.  Don't cede that, or you'll be back again.

Functionally, NATO served the purpose of keeping the European nations from fighting one another.  The US underwriting their defense allowed them to focus on trade.

The post WW2 economic boom was what happens when people don't fight and instead trade.

The US benefits from NATO existing, but not directly from being a member.  Being a member may be a pre-requisite for it to functionally exist, but that's a different point.

[FLEA]

2 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Functionally, NATO served the purpose of keeping the European nations from fighting one another.  The US underwriting their defense allowed them to focus on trade.

The post WW2 economic boom was what happens when people don't fight and instead trade.

The US benefits from NATO existing, but not directly from being a member.  Being a member may be a pre-requisite for it to functionally exist, but that's a different point.

Also other organizations have formed to fill that roll including the CSCE, the EU and the Council of Europe. 

[Prozac]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

In what world is societal economic collapse from excessive debt absorption  considered security? 

I’ve heard the “sky is falling due to the national debt” shtick since I was about 12. We’re not only still here, but we’re still the world’s biggest economy by a wide margin. We might get passed by China someday if you believe their government’s numbers, but their per capita gdp sits between Iraq’s and the Maldives’. I have more/better stuff than my parents did and I enjoy living in a country that continues to host the world’s reserve currency (and will do so for the foreseeable future). It’s almost as if sovereign debt is a completely different animal than personal debt. Who knew? 🤷‍♂️ 

[HeloDude]

51 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I’ve heard the “sky is falling due to the national debt” shtick since I was about 12. We’re not only still here, but we’re still the world’s biggest economy by a wide margin. We might get passed by China someday if you believe their government’s numbers, but their per capita gdp sits between Iraq’s and the Maldives’. I have more/better stuff than my parents did and I enjoy living in a country that continues to host the world’s reserve currency (and will do so for the foreseeable future). It’s almost as if sovereign debt is a completely different animal than personal debt. Who knew? 🤷‍♂️ 

Yeah…the economy is doing great.  I say we spend even more money. 

[FLEA]

Prozac you've made some really phenomenal arguments that we can reduce social spending, back off student debt relieve and not worry about making housing more abundant and affordable. Thanks mate. 

[Guardian]

That's just one example of the parties flipping.  Slavery and civil rights, South vs North, federalism, limited government... these ain't your granddaddy's political parties.

What are you talking about? Republican Party started because it was anti slavery. Republicans in the 1950’s and 60’s were more likely to vote for civil rights bills than democrats. What are you talking about?

Trying to change history?

[Random Guy]

I see some posts about money, debt, deficits, foreign aid support and NATO membership vs spending, etc.

 

I can offer some insight to this topic, whatever it's worth, as its not very complicated but rather unintuitive. Ultimately, this isn't the thread for this discussion, but... I'll add something here briefly hopefully to redirect energy toward the topic. 

 

First and foremost, money is debt (but what about coinage! we can talk about coins and barley and salt as well, but for now let's stick with money today).

 

This means that for every unit of money, such as a digital bank deposit in your account at USAA, has a corresponding debt component. So if you have $1 in your bank account, then someone, somewhere, has a $1 liability the owe to someone as well. This is true for all financial assets. For every contract there is always an asset and liability component, and these two always sum to zero at any given point in time.

 

When we say that you have $100,000 in your savings account, then I must have $100,000 in liabilities, if we are the only two account holders in this example. Here is an example of a bank holding 100k in loan contracts and the associated bank deposits. You have hoarded, I have borrowed (which created the money), and the bank created that money by writing the entries on its ledger. 

When we say that the Fed has X in debt, that means someone else has X in assets, typically Treasury securities. This number is not particularly relevant from the perspective of the US Gov, because it can create any amount of $USD at any time (the Fed just marks up an account holder at a Federal Reserve Bank, and likewise the recipient's bank will mark up their account holder's account [because you and I cannot be account holders at the Fed, we hold a lower tier of money known as commercial bank money]).

The US Gov's budgeting process is about allocating real resources, which are finite, and the $USD they create in order to assign these real resources to different tasks and projects is just a tool to facilitate allocation in a highly decentralized manner. In the periphery, away from direct state purchases, where we all spend most of our time acquiring and exchanging these units of money, we often misunderstand that the purpose of the currency was not and is not peripheral exchange between third parties in the state's unit of account ($USD). The purpose of the currency is to achieve objectives set out by the government.

Back to the question: when the US creates USD in a Federal Reserve Bank, for an account holder like a foreign bank and the recipient then spends those USD in a foreign market, real resources are assigned (if they were unemployed or idle) or re-assigned (lured away from existing employment or projects), and this is not directly related to the US itself--the US Gov is mobilizing real resources in a foreign territory. The US can spend any amount in foreign territories to allocate idle resources, or even 'overspend' if $USD is the predominant exchange currency and intentionally cause [classical monetary] inflation and associated disruption, for example. There is no 'trade off' between spending at home and spending on foreign aid, generally. When we say 'the US should be using that foreign aid at home'... Congress is generally ok with how income and wealth is distributed in the US, and spending more on certain people (say by spending the same amount as a given foreign aid program) would alter the distribution of income and wealth that Congress has rather carefully or clumsily sculpted, which would re-assign resources or employ people that they would prefer be unemployed.

 

Lastly, because money is debt, and all units are entries on bank ledgers, and the US gov controls the most important ledger (the Fed) which the rest of the world accumulates and holds as financial savings, there is no 'funding constraint' on US gov spending. That is, the US can always write numbers on its bank's ledger. What it can't do, is manifest a specific real resource upon command at a specific time. It must try to create that real resource over time by allocating resources that produce what it actually wants far ahead of time. From this perspective, the 'US National Debt' is not a particularly relevant number. And, if we want to consider this from a stability perspective, where system participants are each eager to be net savers of financial assets (because money is debt) there must be someone or something that holds the corresponding liabilities. Make sense?

 

 

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

Make sense?

No. Framing something like this from such a one-sided perspective (i.e. money is debt) doesn't illuminate very much. You may as well re-write your whole post from the perspective that money is credit - it would be as valid and would make about the same amount of sense.

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

Ultimately, this isn't the thread for this discussion, but... I'll add something here briefly hopefully to redirect energy toward the topic. 

Yeah, a post like this in the Russia/Ukraine discussion board is gyro-tumbling, but is seems you knew that??? Make a new thread if you want to discuss monetary theory.

[nunya]

  

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

What are you talking about? Republican Party started because it was anti slavery. Republicans in the 1950’s and 60’s were more likely to vote for civil rights bills than democrats. What are you talking about?

Trying to change history?

Freak out much?  The Democrats were the party of slavery because they were the party of the southern farm economy.  Now the same party depends on the black vote.

[waveshaper]

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

Make sense?

 

 

A little more Gyro-Tumbling: This is way too complicated for my feeble-mind.  I'm with this crew on how to handle money, debt, deficits, foreign aid support, etc, etc. Let these guys run this shit-show for a few decades and see how things turnout. 

"Money for nothin' and your chicks for free (Dire Straits)"

https://vk.com/video-88133688_456239532

Edited May 16, 2022 by waveshaper

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

I see some posts about money, debt, deficits, foreign aid support and NATO membership vs spending, etc.

 

I can offer some insight to this topic, whatever it's worth, as its not very complicated but rather unintuitive. Ultimately, this isn't the thread for this discussion, but... I'll add something here briefly hopefully to redirect energy toward the topic. 

 

First and foremost, money is debt (but what about coinage! we can talk about coins and barley and salt as well, but for now let's stick with money today).

 

This means that for every unit of money, such as a digital bank deposit in your account at USAA, has a corresponding debt component. So if you have $1 in your bank account, then someone, somewhere, has a $1 liability the owe to someone as well. This is true for all financial assets. For every contract there is always an asset and liability component, and these two always sum to zero at any given point in time.

 

When we say that you have $100,000 in your savings account, then I must have $100,000 in liabilities, if we are the only two account holders in this example. Here is an example of a bank holding 100k in loan contracts and the associated bank deposits. You have hoarded, I have borrowed (which created the money), and the bank created that money by writing the entries on its ledger. 

When we say that the Fed has X in debt, that means someone else has X in assets, typically Treasury securities. This number is not particularly relevant from the perspective of the US Gov, because it can create any amount of $USD at any time (the Fed just marks up an account holder at a Federal Reserve Bank, and likewise the recipient's bank will mark up their account holder's account [because you and I cannot be account holders at the Fed, we hold a lower tier of money known as commercial bank money]).

The US Gov's budgeting process is about allocating real resources, which are finite, and the $USD they create in order to assign these real resources to different tasks and projects is just a tool to facilitate allocation in a highly decentralized manner. In the periphery, away from direct state purchases, where we all spend most of our time acquiring and exchanging these units of money, we often misunderstand that the purpose of the currency was not and is not peripheral exchange between third parties in the state's unit of account ($USD). The purpose of the currency is to achieve objectives set out by the government.

Back to the question: when the US creates USD in a Federal Reserve Bank, for an account holder like a foreign bank and the recipient then spends those USD in a foreign market, real resources are assigned (if they were unemployed or idle) or re-assigned (lured away from existing employment or projects), and this is not directly related to the US itself--the US Gov is mobilizing real resources in a foreign territory. The US can spend any amount in foreign territories to allocate idle resources, or even 'overspend' if $USD is the predominant exchange currency and intentionally cause [classical monetary] inflation and associated disruption, for example. There is no 'trade off' between spending at home and spending on foreign aid, generally. When we say 'the US should be using that foreign aid at home'... Congress is generally ok with how income and wealth is distributed in the US, and spending more on certain people (say by spending the same amount as a given foreign aid program) would alter the distribution of income and wealth that Congress has rather carefully or clumsily sculpted, which would re-assign resources or employ people that they would prefer be unemployed.

 

Lastly, because money is debt, and all units are entries on bank ledgers, and the US gov controls the most important ledger (the Fed) which the rest of the world accumulates and holds as financial savings, there is no 'funding constraint' on US gov spending. That is, the US can always write numbers on its bank's ledger. What it can't do, is manifest a specific real resource upon command at a specific time. It must try to create that real resource over time by allocating resources that produce what it actually wants far ahead of time. From this perspective, the 'US National Debt' is not a particularly relevant number. And, if we want to consider this from a stability perspective, where system participants are each eager to be net savers of financial assets (because money is debt) there must be someone or something that holds the corresponding liabilities. Make sense?

 

 

I hope you’re prepared to duck…

😎

[Guardian]

  
Freak out much?  The Democrats were the party of slavery because they were the party of the southern farm economy.  Now the same party depends on the black vote.

Read emotion into emotionless text much?

You still didn’t answer my question which is ultimately to please justify your original comment. Just because democrats depend on the black vote doesn’t equate to anything in your statement about flipping.