Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Globalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Your 'globalism' seems to have a strange definition. It seems to vary between meaning being involved, at all, in the world, and meaning specific policies that the US has intermittently pursued.
    It can be boiled down to a single sentence: Placing the welfare of the world ahead of the welfare of our country. Meddling in other countries almost always turns out badly for us.

    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    You mention 'democracy building' for example. That's been a bit of an on-again off-again idea that the US has occasionally tinkered with over the years. But far and away above that would be the number of times the US has done democracy un-building in the form of instigating coups against, and overthrows of, democratically elected governments. Those are different things, and its important not to lump them into the same category.
    In recent years they have been the same thing.

    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Looking through the 20th century, some of the stand-out low-lights of that were the US overthrowing democratically elected governments in central america in the 1920s to further the profits of US banana companies (where the term "Banana Republic" meaning unstable country comes from), the US waging a massive war in Vietnam and the surrounding region for basically no good reason and whose original incident (Gulf of Tonkin incident) was a lie, the overthrow of a democratic government in Iran because the US didn't like the Iranian government thinking that they owned the oil in their own ground rather than US oil companies and the eventual replacement of Iran's government by extremist Muslims as a result, Reagan's unflinching support for terrorist forces in Nicaragua loyal to the previous dictator against the democratically elected government and his insistence on supplying the terrorists with weapons to help them wage war against the democratically elected government even if it meant going directly against congress and seeking to fund this program by selling weapons to the now-hostile extremist Iranian government, etc. Not that the situation in the 21st century has been a whole lot better, with Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq being the stand-out, and the resultant foreseeable and predicted (by numerous people including Bernie Sanders) collapse of that nation and formation of ISIS.
    You forgot Chile. I'm not not sure where you're going with your list except to bolster my complaint.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      It is interesting to see US conservatives get increasingly wound up about foreign aid, yet US foreign aid is actually at pretty low levels compared to what it used to be:

      Compared to other OECD countries, the US doesn't even make the top-givers list:

      The US is about 23rd in foreign aid given per capita, behind Slovenia and Greece.
      That's an argument I used earlier in life, when my neighbor friends got a larger allowance than me. My parents response was "I don't care what other families are doing. This is how we do it." If those countries want to give 99% of the GDP away then that's their business. And Norway is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. I'm not keen on copying their habits.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      And when in 2015 Obama redirected 2% of the money that the US gives in foreign aid, to climate related assistance funds, the conservatives worked themselves into a tizzy, imagining that the US treasury doors were being flung open and the rest of the world was looting it or something.

      It's worth noting that the US's massive foreign aid toward Germany and Japan in the wake of WWII was a huge positive for the US. It successfully turned enemies of the US into long-time allies who today remain extremely productive and friendly countries and economies.
      There's a difference between plundering vanquished enemies and rebuilding their countries, in how they reform afterward. I'm sure assistance worked for those two nations - 75 years ago - but that was a different era and in a more black-and-white world. The question might also be: Would the Nazis have risen to power if Germany wasn't ravaged at the Treaty of Versailles?

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Today, foreign aid money mostly goes to 3rd world countries, and has succeeded in massively improving quality of life in those countries.
      There are poor people in this country who could use massive improvement.

      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      This has positive effects for the developed world that range from less likelihood of pandemics breaking out from those nations to kill people in the West due to more healthy living conditions in those nations, less chance of wars breaking out that would require troops from the West fighting and dying due to greater stability in those nations, a lower total environmental burden on the earth due to increasing life expectancies and access to contraception in those nations meaning they don't need/want to have as many children meaning the total earth population is now trending toward stabilizing rather than exponentially increasing.
      And many of those countries are run by corrupt government s that pocket the money.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seanD View Post
        Foreign aid is OFTEN interchangeable with regime change campaigns of which the neocons vehemently push for. Examples would be foreign aid guised as "humanitarian aid" that actually funds and arms "rebels" in Libya and Syria to fight evil dictators for the purpose of regime change in those countries. Or foreign aid that funds and arms the Saudis' onslaught in Yemen (isn't that a current leftist outrage issue?).
        I think foreign aid for roads, hospitals etc is totally different to foreign aid for weapons or for funding separatist groups.

        And you act like 50 billion (of course that's what's officially accounted for) is peanuts.
        Any government spending always sounds big because it's in the millions, billions or trillions. But that confuses people because to the everyday person all those numbers are "a lot of money", so they don't really spot when one spending amount is 1000x bigger than another. I think the solution is to always report government spending per person (pp, aka per capita), then the average person can understand the amounts being talked about - the government could have given every person in the country that amount of money, and instead has spent it on X.

        In those metrics, the US federal spending per year is $12,500 pp. Within that, the big-ticket items are Social Security ($3003), 'Defense' ($2256) Medicare ($1780), and Medicaid ($1190).

        When compared to those numbers, the $150 pp that the US spends on foreign aid (your $50 billion number) is indeed peanuts. It's just over 1% of the budget. That's less than the amount that defense spending tends to fluctuate by from year to year - in 2016 defense spending was $1760 pp, while in the 2019 proposal that just passed it's $2256 pp, an increase of almost $500 pp. So the entire foreign aid budget is 3x smaller than the increase in the defense budget from 2016 to 2019. Anyone in the US who seriously wants to save money that's being wasted currently, should be focusing on cutting the defense budget.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ronson View Post
          That's an argument I used earlier in life, when my neighbor friends got a larger allowance than me. My parents response was "I don't care what other families are doing. This is how we do it." If those countries want to give 99% of the GDP away then that's their business.
          The claim made by many US conservatives, including Trump, which I was critiquing, is the claim that other countries are taking advantage of the US, that the US in some unique way is giving far more than its fair share and being picked on and looted. Such claims are false. The US is giving less than most other developed nations. While the US is obviously free to change its level of giving, it is simply not true that other developed nations have somehow played the US for a sucker - they are giving more than it is.

          And Norway is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world.
          And one of the happiest, and one of the richest.

          As I look at surveys of how happy people in different countries are relative to their level of taxes, it appears that within the Western world those countries with the highest tax rates are generally the happiest. Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc all have much higher taxes than the US and the people there are significantly happier than people in the US (even their rich people who are paying high taxes). Turns out that having good roads, good education, good healthcare, good police forces, good labor laws, and a good social safety net, makes everyone happier even rich people.

          From what I can tell from looking at the international data, the optimal balance seems to be smack bang half-way between full libertarianism (no government) and full communism (government does everything). The countries where government spending constitutes about 50% of the economy, and private spending constitutes about 50% of the economy, seem to be the happiest / freest / do best across a huge variety of metrics. (The US sits at about 33% government spending within the economy, so its 'size of government' is small compared to the countries that do best)

          The question might also be: Would the Nazis have risen to power if Germany wasn't ravaged at the Treaty of Versailles?
          Exactly. The theory I was taught at school was that if the allies had been more generous after WWI and given some money (in foreign aid) to help rebuild Germany the way they did after WWII, instead of looting it dry through the Treaty of Versailles, then there probably would not have been a WWII. It's a great example to show how giving foreign aid rather than looting foreign countries helps prevent war rather than cause it.

          There are poor people in this country who could use massive improvement.
          I 100% agree. The US seems 3rd-world to me in certain locations (eg. parts of Alabama, Kansas, etc where some people lack functioning sewerage systems etc) and in certain aspects (lack of government provided healthcare for all, lack of government provided housing for the homeless etc). If I were put in charge I would probably declare a national emergency on day 1 and set the military to building housing for the homeless, and then spend the next year trying my absolute hardest to get universal government provided medical care for everyone like my country has had for the last 75 years.

          And many of those countries are run by corrupt government s that pocket the money.
          US foreign aid given by the State Department is always made conditional on the receiving countries conforming to a long list of requirements regarding their reduction of corruption based on what are considered to be best-practices for reducing corruption.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            I do think the United States is too deeply involved in foreign affairs though at the same time I think an abrupt withdrawal from world affairs would be irresponsible given that our government's actions have had an effect on various areas of destabilization. It would be like creating a mess and suddenly leaving without trying to pick it up.

            I would like to push back on one part: From a Christian perspective, I do think that the overall welfare of the world is more important than the welfare of the US. We have brothers in Christ all around the world and I don't see any justification for claiming that the good of a persecuted brother in China (China is cracking down on religious freedom, recently banning the Bible) does not outweigh the good of a random non-Christian living in the US.
            I agree, and this is the main reason I could be persuaded that Christians ought not be involved in politics. ISTM that ideally, we should have more solidarity with other members of the Holy Nation that is the Kingdom of God wherever they be than with members of any earthly nation or kingdom, including the within whose borders we reside. But also ISTM that any earthly political office owes primary allegiance to its earthly nation, at least in cases of secular countries.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              I think foreign aid for roads, hospitals etc is totally different to foreign aid for weapons or for funding separatist groups.
              Thinking it's different doesn't change the fact that it isn't.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                That's an argument I used earlier in life, when my neighbor friends got a larger allowance than me. My parents response was "I don't care what other families are doing. This is how we do it." If those countries want to give 99% of the GDP away then that's their business.
                The claim made by many US conservatives, including Trump, which I was critiquing, is the claim that other countries are taking advantage of the US, that the US in some unique way is giving far more than its fair share and being picked on and looted. Such claims are false. The US is giving less than most other developed nations. While the US is obviously free to change its level of giving, it is simply not true that other developed nations have somehow played the US for a sucker - they are giving more than it is.
                You may be confusing financial assistance with NATO defense contributions. I've never heard conservatives compare (and then complain) about the former.

                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                And one of the happiest, and one of the richest.

                As I look at surveys of how happy people in different countries are relative to their level of taxes, it appears that within the Western world those countries with the highest tax rates are generally the happiest. Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc all have much higher taxes than the US and the people there are significantly happier than people in the US (even their rich people who are paying high taxes). Turns out that having good roads, good education, good healthcare, good police forces, good labor laws, and a good social safety net, makes everyone happier even rich people.
                Yes, and some people like to be nurtured as adults. People who have never known freedom from government don't recognize when they are enslaved. Besides, I think those books are cooked as the surveys tend to be conducted by globalists or others who promote big government.

                https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45308016

                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                From what I can tell from looking at the international data, the optimal balance seems to be smack bang half-way between full libertarianism (no government) and full communism (government does everything). The countries where government spending constitutes about 50% of the economy, and private spending constitutes about 50% of the economy, seem to be the happiest / freest / do best across a huge variety of metrics. (The US sits at about 33% government spending within the economy, so its 'size of government' is small compared to the countries that do best)
                "Best" is subjective. The best products in the world are the ones that were subjected to competition. Government doesn't compete, it dictates (if the citizenry allows it). And since government doesn't work to earn the money it collects, it doesn't value it like productive elements of society do. Yes, it can be more charitible as a result but it is also more wasteful. Much more wasteful.

                Q: How many government officials does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
                A: Unknown. One to spot the burned-out bulb, his supervisor to authorize a requisition, a requisition typist, twelve clerks to file the requisition copies, a mail clerk to deliver the requisition to the purchasing department, a purchasing agent to order the bulb, a clerk to forward the purchasing order, a clerk to mail-order a receiving clerk to receive the bulb ...

                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                Exactly. The theory I was taught at school was that if the allies had been more generous after WWI and given some money (in foreign aid) to help rebuild Germany the way they did after WWII, instead of looting it dry through the Treaty of Versailles, then there probably would not have been a WWII. It's a great example to show how giving foreign aid rather than looting foreign countries helps prevent war rather than cause it.
                You're introducing "foreign aid" into that mix. My point was that the treaty unfairly burdened Germany financially.

                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                I 100% agree. The US seems 3rd-world to me in certain locations (eg. parts of Alabama, Kansas, etc where some people lack functioning sewerage systems etc) and in certain aspects (lack of government provided healthcare for all, lack of government provided housing for the homeless etc). If I were put in charge I would probably declare a national emergency on day 1 and set the military to building housing for the homeless, and then spend the next year trying my absolute hardest to get universal government provided medical care for everyone like my country has had for the last 75 years.

                US foreign aid given by the State Department is always made conditional on the receiving countries conforming to a long list of requirements regarding their reduction of corruption based on what are considered to be best-practices for reducing corruption.
                The US is in massive debt. We re operating under imbalanced budgets. Foreign aid might not be a major expenditure relatively, but when a household is in such debt it needs to start cutting out needless spending. This is the best place to start.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                  It can be boiled down to a single sentence: Placing the welfare of the world ahead of the welfare of our country. Meddling in other countries almost always turns out badly for us.
                  Our country is in the world, as is the case with the problem of Global warming, nationalism is a loser. And aid is not the same thing as meddling.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    Thinking it's different doesn't change the fact that it isn't.
                    But it is!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      The claim made by many US conservatives, including Trump, which I was critiquing, is the claim that other countries are taking advantage of the US, that the US in some unique way is giving far more than its fair share and being picked on and looted. Such claims are false. The US is giving less than most other developed nations. While the US is obviously free to change its level of giving, it is simply not true that other developed nations have somehow played the US for a sucker - they are giving more than it is.
                      FYI - the first quote box in my post got scrambled. My apologies.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                        But also ISTM that any earthly political office owes primary allegiance to its earthly nation, at least in cases of secular countries.


                        Many such cases, just swap out liberalism for progressivism, libertarianism, or classical liberalism (aka conservatism).
                        Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                          In the US, IMO, globalism means placing the welfare of the world ahead of the welfare of the country. The idea sounds lofty and laudable on the face of it (which is about as deep as progressives think things through) but is not sustainable. Because from the US vantage point, globalism means sending US tax dollars overseas to benefit others, and not US citizens. When it becomes more and more difficult to retain middle class status in this country, it is simply outrageous to see millions and billions of US tax dollars being sent elsewhere.
                          Foreign aid is not primarily about benefiting the world, but about advancing US policy worldwide.
                          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'll never understand why so many conservatives in the US hate the government spending money on science, education and charity, but love spending money on the military. I have to search a long time to find an article about a conservative pointing out that most of the fiscal debt increase has come from the military budget.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              I'll never understand why so many conservatives in the US hate the government spending money on science, education and charity, but love spending money on the military. I have to search a long time to find an article about a conservative pointing out that most of the fiscal debt increase has come from the military budget.
                              You're speaking of RINOS. And the biggest military budget ever was recently passed in a democrat majority House

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                You're speaking of RINOS. And the biggest military budget ever was recently passed in a democrat majority House
                                What's a RINO and I thought the Senate approved the budget?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                233 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X