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?"

Comments

He not wrong

[fred6666]

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.

Re:He not wrong

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:He not wrong

[Comrade Ogilvy]

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.

Re:He not wrong

[The Snazster]

China loves free trade . . . for everyone else. For themselves they much prefer mercantilism (fostering their economy with subsidies, tariffs, investment controls, currency controls, technology theft, government sponsored corporate spying, and any other trade barriers they can raise to their advantage). It's past time the playing field was leveled. If they want to keep playing with the big kids they need to start playing by the rules.

Too many chump western politicians have let this go for far too long, rather than make the necessary waves.

Re:He not wrong

[ShanghaiBill]

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?

Re:He not wrong

[bobbied]

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.

Re:He not wrong

[smooth wombat]

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.

Re:He not wrong

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:He not wrong

[St.Creed]

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.

Re:He not wrong

[Freischutz]

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.

Re:He not wrong

[penandpaper]

The constitution is not the fucking ultimate ethical guide to everything.

It was written by some of the best educated and intelligent men of the day who had an incredible understanding in political science, sociology, and economics. They had insight into our bickering and partisanship that persists to this day. The Constitution has been the standard bearer of governance around the world.

Forgive me if I think your opinion is rather empty.

We've been tricked by the 1%

[AnonyMouseCowWard]

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.

Re:We've been tricked by the 1%

[Archtech]

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?

You forgot bank bailouts. ("Socialism for the rich"). Which cost far more than all the other stuff put together.

Incidentally, state pensions and unemployment insurance were introduced by Bismarck in Germany, 1881-9. Bismarck was not a socialist.

Re:We've been tricked by the 1%

[Orgasmatron]

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.

Re:We've been tricked by the 1%

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Re:We've been tricked by the 1%

[Phillip2]

"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.

Yes and no

[ChromeAeonuim]

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.

Chicom bullshit

[whodunit]

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.

Re:Chicom bullshit

[The Evil Atheist]

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

Re:Cool!

[Ichijo]

But of course China wants us to have a weaker 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?

It's actually BILLIONS

[Spy Handler]

"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.

He should start at home

[BLToday]

China doesn’t need any carriers, military airplanes, or build artificial islands in South China Sea. They totally could use that money to build more bridges, skyscrapers and maybe fix the roads between Tianjin and Beijing. Or maybe a few more nuclear plants.

conservative welfare & socialism

[Tablizer]

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.

Re:Cool!

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Wrong

[sycodon]

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?

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wrong

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Cut "defense" budget, gain freedom.

[Futurepower(R)]

"If our defense budget was cut in half, which freedoms would I lose?"

You would gain freedom, because there would be more money for taking care of citizens.

The "Defense" of the U.S. is poorly managed. Highly qualified people don't want to work helping the military kill people and destroy property.

800 military bases in more than 70 countries: Where in the World Is the U.S. Military?

Quote:

"Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad -- from giant "Little Americas" to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined."

Worry about the message, not the messenger.

[imperious_rex]

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.

America

[rsilvergun]

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.