Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Billionaire Jack Ma Says the US Wasted Trillions on Warfare Instead of Investing in Infrastructure (cnbc.com)

Alibaba founder Jack Ma fired a shot at the United States in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. An anonymous reader shares a report: Ma was asked by CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin about the U.S. economy in relation to China, since President-elect Donald Trump has been talking about imposing new tariffs on Chinese imports. Ma says blaming China for any economic issues in the U.S. is misguided. If America is looking to blame anyone, Ma said, it should blame itself. "It's not that other countries steal jobs from you guys," Ma said. "It's your strategy. Distribute the money and things in a proper way." He said the U.S. has wasted over $14 trillion in fighting wars over the past 30 years rather than investing in infrastructure at home.

To be sure, Ma is not the only critic of the costly U.S. policies of waging war against terrorism and other enemies outside the homeland. Still, Ma said this was the reason America's economic growth had weakened, not China's supposed theft of jobs. In fact, Ma called outsourcing a "wonderful" and "perfect" strategy. "The American multinational companies made millions and millions of dollars from globalization," Ma said. "The past 30 years, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, they've made tens of millions -- the profits they've made are much more than the four Chinese banks put together. ... But where did the money go?"

27 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. He not wrong by fred6666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change. The Russians would still have invaded and kept Crimea. The Chinese would still not have invaded Taiwan. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would be pretty much in the same state.

    1. Re:He not wrong by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like any one in power would do this. They will let everything go to shit and blame it on the Millenials and Gen Z. Which they are already doing.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    2. Re:He not wrong by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much. The US has spent 4-5% of its GDP on military for decades. Are our US citizens safer for all these pricey foreign entanglements? No. We still lost Vietnam. We are more targeted by terrorists and murderers than ever before. We still handed over Iraq to Iran. We still let Russia waltz into Crimea. We are still side players in the fate of Syria.

      The warmongers like to talk of the threat of China. But China is doing nothing more than all modern powers do: spends ballpark 2% or less. Because spending more is throwing money away.

    3. Re:He not wrong by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change. The Russians would still have invaded and kept Crimea. The Chinese would still not have invaded Taiwan. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would be pretty much in the same state.

      How absolutely wrong can you be?

      Is there no understanding of the deterrent effect of having a strong and world wide capable military presence? Isolationist policy doesn't work and hasn't worked for generations. "Speak Softly and carry a big stick" actually works, assuming the stick is big enough. So where you claim nothing would be different, you are obviously not considering what *could* have happened in a different environment with less deterrent from our military because it was weaker.

      It seems to be that we are largely ignoring the lessons of history. Why did Japan attack us? Because they believed they had a chance to win the conflict because of our weakened military was incapable of fighting in Europe AND the Pacific at the same time. The USA was trying to navigate a isolationist policy, not get into the war, yet our weakened stance is what tempted Japan into risking a war. Had we already built up, they very likely would have not considered the risk of going head to head with the US and contented themselves with what they had.

      Further, "provide for the common defense" is one of the primary purposes of the Federal Government established by the US Constitution. We need to take this purpose seriously for the benefit of our country in the future.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:He not wrong by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      U.S. military spending is huge simply because the U.S. economy is huge. If you look at military spending as percent of GDP, the U.S. doesn't even make the top 20. It's slightly above the world average (3.1% vs 2.2%). And if you factor in that the U.S. is bound by the peace treaties ending WWII to provide for Japan's national defense, it's pretty much at the world average.

      Comparing based on raw dollars is like comparing food budget of an apartment complex in first world vs the food budget of a single family in a developing nation. You're ignoring differences in population and economic productivity.

    5. Re:He not wrong by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Per capita, America imprisons far more people than China. ... I don't think America is a good counter-example of a

      Being arrested for drugs versus being arrested for the wrong religion. Seems comparable. What people are arrested for is far more important than total quantity and per capita.

      Most of the incarcerations in the US are for drug offenses. People voted for those laws and have the power to repeal those laws, as many are doing. Enforcing laws with the consent of the governed via elections is a good thing. Even if the laws are bad. As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution the States can outlaw things, like drugs, incandescent light bulbs, and walking your giraffe down main street (is a law in a city I know).

      Show me a country that cannot outlaw hate speech that allows unrestricted self defense and I will show you a more free country even with vigorously enforced drugs laws.

    6. Re:He not wrong by Major+Blud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are our US citizens safer for all these pricey foreign entanglements? No.

      But it's not just us....most European countries are safer. Japan is safer. Taiwan is safer. Australia, New Zealand, the list goes on. These are all countries that have defense treaties with the United States.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    7. Re:He not wrong by desdinova+216 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      do you really think China wants to get into a war with the US? all of the money they generate making stuff will go away. that would be cutting their hands off to spite their face

    8. Re:He not wrong by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      do you really think China wants to get into a war with the US? all of the money they generate making stuff will go away. that would be cutting their hands off to spite their face

      What makes you think that all the players on the Chinese are rational actors who make rational decisions and that there are no war hawks on the Chinese side? Or as Eisenhower pointed out: "Wars are stupid and they can start stupidly," ... and that stupidity is usually born of nationalism and patriotic fever.

    9. Re:He not wrong by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And they hated it, too many compromises and their plan was to come up with a better one within a decade or two, not to create a religion around it including making it unchangeable in many ways.
      I doubt they'd like a country that sees police routinely kill people, people in large quantities locked up, and especially a huge standing army, even passed the second amendment to make sure the people were armed and didn't need a standing army.
      They'd also be horrified by all the exceptions to the first 2 amendments. People actually getting executed for speech as if the 1st mentioned a national security exception and a think of the children exception as well as all the reasons that people can't be armed and government buildings where arms are banned.
      They'd also be horrified at people being thrown in prison for possessing hemp, something they all grew and likely used.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:He not wrong by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Constitution has been the standard bearer of governance around the world.

      It's funny how you're so brainwashed by your own propaganda.

      Almost no other country cares about the US constitution and certainly do not try to emulate or incorporate any part of it at all.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  2. We've been tricked by the 1% by AnonyMouseCowWard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, he's right... We've been complaining here about inequality and how trickle-down economics don't work, and that's exactly what he's saying. It's not news though. The billionaires took control of politics and have been accumulating both money and power, and have been lying and getting votes from the exact people that would benefit most from redistribution. But that's okay... we prefer to believe we all have a chance at the American Dream, rather than have anything that resembles socialism.

    1. Re:We've been tricked by the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." -- Alexander Fraser Tytler (aka Fake Ben Franklin)

      "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken

      "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite." (Every nation gets the government it deserves.) -- Joseph de Maistre

      "Dumb fucks" -- Mark Zuckerberg

    2. Re:We've been tricked by the 1% by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that's okay... we prefer to believe we all have a chance at the American Dream, rather than have anything that resembles socialism.

      We have all of these in the U.S.:

      Medicare
      Medicade
      Progressive Income Tax
      Social Security
      Social Security Disability
      Unemployment Insurance
      SNAP (Food Stamps)
      WIC

      What world do you live in where this doesn't resemble socialism?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:We've been tricked by the 1% by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bismark introduced those measures because he was hoping to stave off the impending full-blown socialism that he saw coming. He was correct, and his measures were somewhat successful - it would be ~30 years before the final collapse of the German right, and it would be another 10 years after that before the emerging leader of the German left was able to step into the resulting vacuum and implement the rest of the plan that Bismark had tried to suppress.

      But more to the point, there is no such thing as a pure socialist country or economy, nor is there anywhere to be found a pure free-market economy. Any example that can be found is actually a hybrid. In the west, we have modestly-free to mostly-free markets with some socialist-like features, such as the programs mentioned in the post you quoted. In places like China, they allow some free enterprise in small operations while everything large and/or important is operated by party operatives.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    4. Re:We've been tricked by the 1% by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You forgot bank bailouts. ("Socialism for the rich").

      Don't stop there. There's also auto bailouts, green energy subsidies, farm subsidies, economic grants for women and minorities, etc. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because someone is against social welfare that they can't be against corporate welfare as well.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:We've been tricked by the 1% by Phillip2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "green energy subsidies"

      Carbon, fossil fuel subsides also. Just for balance. The majority of coal in the US is now uneconomic against green energy but is subsidised so they still buy it.

  3. He isn't wrong. by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I expect his statement is meant as a Pro-China anti-US rant probably to rial up the Chinese citizens to help them deal with the economic hardships from the opposed restriction to their trade. Also would want the US to lower its military presence so China would have greater influence.

    However he isn't wrong, the US has been complacent in investing into itself. Defecate spending isn't a bad thing, if the money is being put into US services that that will pay for it self later on. However our taxes go mostly to the Military first, and what is left will get the crumbs. This creates a lot of holes in our safety net. This will prevent people from trying to take a risk and start a new business, get up and move to a different state or city to get a new job, being afraid to switch jobs even ones you hate, because you need the medical insurance.

    The conservative faction of the US calls such services as un-american, because that is what the Communist do. However a Democratic Republic with a Capitalist economy can have these support services as well too. The Communist also drink Vodka, so do Capitalist.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. Yes and no by ChromeAeonuim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    blaming China for any economic issues in the U.S. is misguided

    You mean besides state sponsored IP theft, currency manipulation, dumping practices, and disregarding human & environmental welfare to compete on price?

    He's not wrong about the war part. Bush, Cheney, and their cronies emptied the country's coffers to enrich a handful of millionaire and billionaires in the military industrial complex with their bullshit wars. What they did is inexcusable, especially when you consider the opportunity cost of not investing that vast sum of money elsewhere (ex infrastructure, education, healthcare, research, alternative energy, ect.). Think of what we could have if that money was spent productively, like finding cures for diseases (much more likely to hurt you than a terrorist) or aerospace, or any number of other things, and the US needs to get it's shit together when it comes to planning for the future. But China isn't playing entirely fair either.

    he American multinational companies made millions and millions of dollars from globalization,

    When Joe Schmoe's job disappeared, he didn't see a gain, it was so a millionaire could have even more. It's not hard to understand why some people are unhappy.

  5. Chicom bullshit by whodunit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's pretty fucking rich coming from a country that's pouring billions of dollars into building artificial islands in the South China Sea, a brand-new war fleet and expensive ballistic missiles, all of which are designed for the sole and explicit purpose of ejecting the United States from SE Asia by force of arms. To say nothing of blowing tens of billions on the "Belt and Road" initiative, which was intended to spread Chinese influence and control across the region, but has ended up being a colossal waste of money, just like skeptics warned. And this shithead's going to sass us for "wasting money?" Fuck him.

    Besides, he knows damn well where the money from globalization went - straight into the pockets of the huge multinational corporations that directly benefited from labor outsourcing, who've either sat on it or re-invested it in expanding factories overseas to employ more foreign workers and create more cheap product - everything and anything butb injecting it into the US economy. We know why our economy stagnated - worker wages flatlining (considering inflation, actual falling) while the globalizing corporations profits skyrocketed. And some of that money went into the pockets of Reps and Senators on both sides of the aisle to keep them lecturing those silly rube voters on why globalism "works."

    Fuck Jack Ma, and fuck the Chicoms that brung'im.

    1. Re:Chicom bullshit by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is this even a counter argument? This is just you ranting because you hate the facts.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  6. conservative welfare & socialism by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's face it: our military is conservative welfare. If you live in a small town or rural area, the only job opportunity for many young men is the military.

  7. Re:Cool! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a dipshit

    Logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem.

    The fact that he is a dipshit does not change the validity of his argument. An assertion should be judged on its merits, not on the character of the advocate.

    America is spending a trillion dollars on a new manned fighter as we enter an age that will almost certainly be dominated by drones.

    America is spending $1.2 trillion on nuclear modernization despite already having 10 times the nuke capability of China.

    Prior to WW2, America spent little on the peacetime military. Instead, we had to "gear up" for each war. After WW2, we went to permanently high spending.

    Let's look at the "before" and "after" scorecard:

    Before:
    1776 - Won - American Revolution
    1812 - Tie - War of 1812
    1847 - Won - Mexican War
    1861 - Won - Civil War
    1898 - Won - Spanish-American War
    1914 - Won - WW1
    1941 - Won - WW2

    After:
    1950 - Tie - Korean War
    1964 - Lost - Vietnam
    1982 - Lost - Lebanon intervention
    1991 - Thought we won, but eventually lost - Iraq
    1992 - Lost - Somalia
    2003 - Lost - Iraq
    2001 - Lost - Afghanistan

    So is "eternal vigilance" actually working? I don't think so, and the evidence suggests that the main effect of a "always ready" military is that it makes it really easy to jump into stupid wars without clear goals or strategies.

  8. Wrong by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We re losing jobs because China and other countries tolerate working conditions, environmental transgressions, and things that would never fly in the US.

    You CANNOT pick up a Chinese steel plant, drop it in Ohio, and operate it at the same level of profit as you can in China, even taking into account the wages and cost of materials. THAT is why US manufacturers go there.

    Some people say we have outsourced jobs. What we really outsourced was the pollution and working conditions that would never be tolerated in the U.S.

    Which begs the question: If it's not OK to manufacture things in the US under these conditions, then why is it OK to do so in China? If we import these items, are we not even a little bit morally responsible for the misery and pollution inflicted while creating these things?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong, we are losing jobs because they are gone. Today it takes 20 hours of human labor to build a car, in 1980 it was over 100. So most of the auto workers are gone. Not coming back. Ever.

  9. Re:He should start at home by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's not in our government either.

    Idiot.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  10. America by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Medicaid pretty much requires you to be destitute. If you make $8/hr for 30/week you're not getting it. Source: Have friends & family that depended on it to survive major illnesses.

    SNAP has been cut back for decades. WIC too.

    The top brackets of our Progressive Income tax have been slashed non-stop for 40 years. Laws were put in place to make it hard to raise them again but easy to cut them, resulting in a "ratcheted" effect where they go down but never up. Government are then forced to implement regressive taxes like the "Netflix" and "Soda" taxes or just plain more sales tax because those aren't covered by the laws.

    Good luck getting on SSI Disability. I've got a buddy who's been in a wheel chair his entire life and has massive hearing loss (no call center work for him) and he fights tooth and to get what little he can. Only reason he's not homeless is friends and family keep pitching in.

    I could go on. We started slashing the safety net with Reagan. Nobody noticed because there were two massive economic bubbles in a row (Internet and Housing). Those bubbles are over and there's nothing on the horizon, folks are feeling it now. That's how we got a guy like Trump, the lower working class is looking for answers (well, their parents mostly, based on the polls of who voted for him and why). Thing is, we've danced this Charleston before: bad economy, demagogue, desperate working class.... It doesn't end well.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/