Canada's economy envy of the world

[jetsetter]

The United States and Canada are not entirely comparable. Canada has a population of 35 million, the United States has a population of 300 million. The size of the economies are significantly different and the roles of each country on the world stage differ greatly. And then there is population make up, distribution, etc.

What works in one may not work in another. Plans and ideas do not just simply scale up. The larger the plan becomes more and more unforeseen problems will arise that are not present in the smaller version of that plan.

 

[Firecat]

The USA spends more than 10x any other nation on it's defense. Cutting into that would benefit us in terms of reducing debt and wouldn't make us any less safe. Of course, since the debt is something like $13 trillion now....maybe even cutting defense would be too little too late.

 

[jetsetter]

The USA spends more than 10x any other nation on it's defense. Cutting into that would benefit us in terms of reducing debt and wouldn't make us any less safe. Of course, since the debt is something like $13 trillion now....maybe even cutting defense would be too little too late.

Defense is the last thing that should be cut. And that is another example of a difference between Canada and the United States. We are in a sense subsiding Canadian defense and the defense of several European countries. They spent less and we spend more. We did it during the Cold War and we are stilling doing it. And I have no problem with that. As the predominant power on this planet we are expected to have a robust military machine and it is the presence of that machine that has allowed a certain amount of peace. Commerce flows unimpeded and that happens when there is a power to ensure it.

Remember our comments from the "Internet kill switch thread":

OakRidge:

It is in the best interest of the United States to remain on top for as long as possible. To draw down our power, to become isolationist as many have suggested would only lead to degradation and destruction. Many do not realize the role of the United States. The term "policeman" is far to simple to explain how the presence of the U.S. influences the rest of the world. Continued global trade, continued relative peace all hing on the U.S. being as powerful as it is and that it is willing to use the power that it has. In a sense it is a stabilizing force, always there in the minds of the various global leaders. If anything the U.S. should be out there more, not less.

Firefox:

The world can't police itself, and the United Nations hasn't done much lately in terms of keeping peace. So if the United States were to assert itself more (and with the actual intention of peacekeeping and not expansionism), then I think Jetsetter is right....the world would probably be better off and safer. For all its faults, I don't think there exists a better choice of superpower than the United States.

4.3% of GDP is high but it is not astronomical and it is a fitting percentage for a superpower.

 

[Firecat]

Defense is the last thing that should be cut. And that is another example of a difference between Canada and the United States. We are in a sense subsiding Canadian defense and the defense of several European countries. They spent less and we spend more. We did it during the Cold War and we are stilling doing it. And I have no problem with that. As the predominant power on this planet we are expected to have a robust military machine and it is the presence of that machine that has allowed a certain amount of peace. Commerce flows unimpeded and that happens when there is a power to ensure it.

Remember our comments from the "Internet kill switch thread":





4.3% of GDP is high but it is not astronomical and it is a fitting percentage for a superpower.

I still believe that, but as I said...that's if the United States is actually motivated by peacekeeping and not expansionism. $500 billion compared to $50 billion (at the highest for other nations) is quite a gap. Granted, i'm not saying to reduce it that far....but I'm sure we can agree that there is a lot of wasteful spending. Or keep spending the same, but spend it wisely at least


*Edit
Just wanted to add that it's not just the military that makes us a superpower (and makes others fear us), it's our wealth among other things. And the world has changed. Because even with all our spending and a large military, it didn't help all that much in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

[Hidden_Hunter]

The USA spends more than 10x any other nation on it's defense. Cutting into that would benefit us in terms of reducing debt and wouldn't make us any less safe. Of course, since the debt is something like $13 trillion now....maybe even cutting defense would be too little too late.

Even your internal defence generates alot of money for the econemy

 

[Firecat]

Even your internal defence generates alot of money for the econemy

Which is exactly why the defense budget will never be touched and why lean towards using military might to solve problems because we spend so much money on weapons. And we have to use these weapons every so often so we can make more. That's part of the problem behind the military-industrial complex.

That also goes back to my earlier comment about the role of the United States as superpower. Does one act out of self-interest or altruism?

 

[Cold Fussion]

The USA spends more than 10x any other nation on it's defense. Cutting into that would benefit us in terms of reducing debt and wouldn't make us any less safe. Of course, since the debt is something like $13 trillion now....maybe even cutting defense would be too little too late.

Its not that the US defense spending is astronomically high, its partly because other countries have their defense spending at a very low percentage. America is in the unique position that it defends the entire western world, and as a result European nations don't need to have massive defense budgets, because if Russia comes, American will protect them because it is within America's interest to defend them. If America took an isolationlsit policy that it did before the second world war, then European nations would be spending a lot more on defense then they do now. The only realistic way for America to cut her defense spending is to give up it's role as a superpower, which really isn't within it's interests, or within the interests of other Western countries, as someone else will come and fill the power vacuum, which in all likelyhood would be china.

 

[Hidden_Hunter]

That said, there are also other countries with massive armies it's just their people cost shit all (or nothing)

 

[Cold Fussion]

That said, there are also other countries with massive armies it's just their people cost shit all (or nothing)

China has a massive standing army, but it has very little power projection. America could fight the Russians in Europe and it could also fight the Chinese in Australia at the same time. No other nation has that sort of capability, and America pays a ton of money to be able to do so. A massive army a superpower do not make.

 

[nomix]

I do think the US would struggle to fight both Russia AND China at different sides of the world.. at the same time, these days. Even Russian hardware is getting better, not to mention the Chinese.

But another thing. The US has the best armed forces in the world. The US leads the world on Army. Why not on schools?

 

[jetsetter]

But another thing. The US has the best armed forces in the world. The US leads the world on Army. Why not on schools?

The people have deemed other things more important. And we do lead in university rankings by a substantial margin.

 

[Cold Fussion]

I do think the US would struggle to fight both Russia AND China at different sides of the world.. at the same time, these days. Even Russian hardware is getting better, not to mention the Chinese.

But another thing. The US has the best armed forces in the world. The US leads the world on Army. Why not on schools?

Of course it would be a struggle, and whether they would win is a completely another question. But if you reversed the situation neither of the other two would stand a chance, which is my arguement.

 

[nomix]

The people have deemed other things more important. And we do lead in university rankings by a substantial margin.

What do you use a university for when people drop out of high school?

Of course it would be a struggle, and whether they would win is a completely another question. But if you reversed the situation neither of the other two would stand a chance, which is my arguement.

The US would lose a lot of men. It would probably be worse than Vietnam. A lot worse. But apart from nuclear, no, they couldn't take you.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

But that's socialism.


But then how do you know you're better than everyone else?


But...

... fuck. :\

socialism maybe....... but look where turning a blind eye to capitalism has landed us. drowning in a sea of debt, and the people that caused it wont be bearing any of the burden because theyre the ones in control. im not sure how many people realise it but i think the banks, the money men, have alot more control over us than many think they do.

 

[nomix]

They don't own us. You can't sell people in our countries. They just own our house, our car, our workplace, our television, our duct tape, our food, they own what's on TV, they own our computer.

So. That's all right. As long as it isn't the gubment. And I agree, it would be troubling if we didn't have any property. But that doesn't mean I'm wild about having the banks and private corporations own the rest.