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?"
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?"
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.
Indeed. US spends an insane amount on the military- and as you say, even at half the current spending it would still dominate. The trick is spending smartly too. Invest in technology and the tools to be able to rapidly build up if needed; do we really need so many active service men in a time of peace?
Jack Ma, is also right, we're losing against China economically because we're not growing our infrastructure. Keep investing for the future and stop spending everything now. Roads, stations, ports and harbours, electrical grids and technology... that's what makes you stronger tomorrow. Not having a base in the middle of nowhere filled with soldiers.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I agree. When I moved to the US, I was stuck by two things :
So I was wondering .. where does all the money go ? Then I realized the obvious. Military.
Sure, but how much military strength is enough?
Of course this is like asking a billionaire how much wealth is enough. There is never enough!
Isn't it ironic that the supposedly anti-tax party is also the one that supports an expensive military?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
"The American multinational companies made millions and millions of dollars from globalization"
Billions, not millions.
"Where did it go?
To officers and shareholders of the corporations, i.e. the "elites".
Some of it dribbled down to the workers in China and Vietnam in the form of slave wages, but not all that much. None of it went to American workers, because they're not using American workers. But hey no problem, just get 'em on food stamps and tell them to live in section 8 housing. Who needs a middle class lifestyle?
But it's gonna backfire on them sooner or later. I foresee a socialist revolution in the making, led by the likes of Ocasio-Cortez. Well not by her specifically, I don't think she has the ruthlessness or the balls to become the next Lenin. But someone in her orbit who does have what it takes to be a good dictator and who isn't afraid of executing a few thousand members of the opposition.
Do I want to see such a thing happen? No, not really. Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela etc. weren't exactly pleasant places to live. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, the current rulers of USA (a.k.a. the Deep State) are such despicable characters, it would feel really good to see their billions wiped out and the high and mighty former CEOs and directors and senators become penniless, and then summarily executed 1918 style.
This is coming from an admitted Communist Party member
Being a member of the CPC doesn't mean anything in terms of beliefs or ideology. Most people join to improve their career prospects. It is a difficult process. A candidate must take an exam, and provide personal references to his good character. But once you are in, you are in an elite club with many benefits and privileges ... which is sort of ironic when you consider what Communism is supposed to be.
In America, people with different views join different political parts. But in China, there is only one party, so ambitious people of every ideology join. The CPC has everything from reactionary Maoists to free-market libertarians.
... from a country that doesn't value Freedom.
Per capita, America imprisons far more people than China. This is true even if you include the ~1M Uyghurs in "re-education" camps. China is certainly repressive, but I don't think America is a good counter-example of a "Shining City on the Hill".
Well here in the USA we value are freedoms and will spend no expense to defend it.
If our defense budget was cut in half, which freedoms would I lose?
Defense spending is 15% of all federal spending and the largest category of discretionary spending. It accounts for $610 billion (as of the time of the graphic) of all federal spending.
You are correct in that there would still be an annual deficit. Current projections for 2018 show a deficit of $810 billion. That would be mean cutting defense spending in half would account for a 38% reduction in our yearly deficit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by one third, that seems like a pretty good idea.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
I've never see such disparity between the rich (ruling class) and the poor (working class) than observed in Socialist countries of history.
Why do we even care about the disparity? Why do we measure this? Should it not be about how well the poor live and how many poor you have? I think so.
So, the measure of success in my view should be how wealthy are the poor in your country and how few of them you have. So even if there are uber filthy rich among us and a large disparity between the lower class and them, if the poor are living well, have food, housing, clothing and are upwardly mobile because there is work and opportunity, I'll take it. If I'm better off and the poor are better off, who cares about the rich?
So I ask you, where are the poor better off? THAT'S the question, that's the measure of success, not this disparity between the rich and poor canard.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Obama and other have claimed that everything was paid back and "the taxpayer made a profit". Well, I doubt if any taxpayers have seen any of the money that was paid back. That will have gone straight into killing people in Asia and Africa, and maybe trying to make the F-35 fly in the rain without killing its pilots.
But what do you mean by "the bank bailouts"? Obama mentioned a few hundred billion - lunch money to the Pentagon. How about $16.8 trillion and counting as of 2015? Who has paid THAT back - and why haven't we heard about it?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Jack Ma isn't the first person to point this out and certainly won't be the last. For example, Thomas Friedman has been saying this for years. Friedman questioned the wisdom of pouring money into countries that will NEVER amount to anything. Afghanistan will always be a backwards, tribal s**thole country riven by warlords and violence. Iraq has a tiny sliver of potential to be more than just another oil barrel nation, but it's too rife with corruption and sectarian grudges to ever realize that potential. Friedman pointed out that the amount of money pissed away on our adventures in the middle-east and central Asia could buy every American a 4-year college degree and still have money left over for infrastructure development and other societal ills. What really saddens me is that we're 17 years into this "Forever War," and every year the memory of living in a nation at peace fades just a little bit more.
I might be wrong but I think you are conflating Socialism with Command Economy
As I understand it:
Socialism: Workers own means of production (ie. individuals own their own production in some way).
Capitalism: Individuals can own the means of production. (ie. one person owns the "work" of many people).
Free Market Economy: Companies are free to form, compete, etc.
Command Economy: Companies are owned by the government.
Welfare (sometimes called "social welfare"): Taxes are used to provide for the general good. Social Security, Universal Healthcare, programs like SNAP, Section 8, etc are all forms of Social Welfare.
Social welfare has nothing to do with socialism other than semantics.
I feel like someone in the 50s called Communism Socialism and most people are still drinking the koolaid (but not the Red kind of course, that's Socialist!)
Communism is an attempt at Socialism achieved through command economy. In this instance it is a direct antithesis to the capitalist, free-market society that most Western Countries have.
Socialist Free-Market policies would be things like making it mandatory that companies have workforce representation on their boards (I think they have this in Germany) and full on Socialist Free-Market would (I think) be like making all companies workers cooperatives or something (which I think exists exactly no-where).
China is a capitalist country, they have free enterprise and individual owned corporations, however their government can (and will) step in to own anything deemed appropriate for the common good (Like 80% or so of their banks, and all their telecommunication, transportation, education and journalism).
So they have a sort of Command Economy for major industries, and then capitalism for everything else. Interestingly, outside of those State Owned businesses, if you want to see a pure capitalist system at work, go to China. No IP laws, few workers rights and safety regulations, it's a capitalist dream.
Keep in mind that State Owned Enterprises are not solely part of Command Economies-- and Command Economies are not necessary Planned Economies.
Honestly, you I'm having trouble describing this whole thing-- probably best not to try and do it in a slashdot post.
All this was to say that Socialism gets a bad rap being lumped in with the Soviet's terrible unplanned State-Owned-Everything Command Economy. They are different.
Also China isn't really socialist anymore than America is. It's State Capitalism, which is what America is heading to from the other direction IMHO.
And who said that they have been sent to these camps simply because they are of the wrong religion.
It's mostly because of being suspected of anything less than a huge and undying love for Kim... sorry, Xi Jinping. And treatment is VERY harsh in the camps. They don't get killed en masse, but they get beaten up and tortured for anything less than total obedience, even for things you cannot know or didn't hear.
That isn't the worst part though. The worst part is the practice of putting party members with authority in the homes of citizens. Especially families with teenage daughters and where the husband or both parents are in a camp, are quite vulnerable. More and more stories about rape and abuse are coming up. If that is supposed to endear people to the party, well, it's not working as intended. The women that are raped have little chance of a good life left, and are exactly the type of person I would recruit for suicide attacks. This ham-handed operation will come back to haunt the Chinese eventually.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Maybe you should have gone all-in with the Paris Agreement then. Push hard for countries like China to clean up.
In fact China is doing a hell of a lot. Peak coal for China was passed years ago. Massive investment in electric vehicles, especially for public transport. A lot of the polluting factories were shut down years ago too, back before the Olympics even.
You could also just do what the EU does and require companies that outsource manufacturing to China to account for emissions over there in their environmental tax burden.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Let me fix this for you.
After:
1950 - Tie - Korean War
1964 - Lost - Vietnam
1982 - Lost - Lebanon intervention ---was not a war
1983 - Won - Grenada --- was not a war
1991 - Thought we won, but eventually lost - Iraq --- WON - GULF War (objective achieved Kuwait liberation)
1992 - Lost - Somalia ---was not a war.
2003 - Lost - Iraq --- WON (objective "remove Saddam" was achieved)
2001 - Lost - Afghanistan ---- WON (objective "remove Taliban from government" was achieved)
The ONLY reason that Korea and Vietnam wasn't won is that starting with Korea the US started truly hindering the military from doing it's job.
As for the rest-
"America is spending a trillion dollars on a new manned fighter as we enter an age that will almost certainly be dominated by drones." Drones are only good when the other guy can't shoot back. They are sitting ducks otherwise. You are prematurely putting your faith in drones. Also, if stealth wasn't such a good idea, other countries wouldn't be working so hard on it.
"America is spending $1.2 trillion on nuclear modernization despite already having 10 times the nuke capability of China." - ALL machines degrade over time. You HAVE to replace and modernize. I assume that you have never bought a new car/computer/whatever...
"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." - Prior to WWII we weren't the world's #1 superpower delegated to protecting other countries. Before you say anything stupid about the US protecting other countries, realise that we are tasked to this job by THOUSANDS of treaties. Europe can sit on their asses and complain about all of spending because they all ran and joined NATO. I haven't seen one leave NATO or dissolve any mutual defense agreement.