rickyp wrote:The world is a lot more interconnected than ever before. Becasue of this the set piece way of looking at the world stage is not complex enough to consider all the parameters that would involve a military conflict.

yes but the argument goes that if there is a return to the Great Power Real Politik then that interconnectedness becomes less important because power and influence become the national goals. Therefore, nations would become more inclined to use these newly built militaries to push its national goals.

While you may not be able to imagine it, I have no problems imagining it. The problem with each of your examples is you assume those nations will act rationally. They don't.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Purple wrote:Would it be worth radically cutting the US defense budget if, thereby, we could... solve poverty (in the USA)?

No.

1. We can't solve it.

I believe I demonstrated conclusively that radically cutting the defense budget would allow us to give every person in poverty more than enough money to bring their income above poverty level. You may believe this to be a crude approach, or against your policy preferences, or contrary to The American Way, but in what sense does it not solve poverty? Poverty is defined as a lack of money, is it not? Even if the dictionary has a different definition, I'm talking here about the statistical categories used by the census bureau and/or HHS, where income is the sole determinant once you've been placed in the appropriate bracket based on age, geography and family size. It's these statistical measures that say the USA has an unconscionably large and growing number of poor people. I'll be happy if we can change the statistic.

"Throwing money" at education won't make every kid a genius, but in what sense does throwing sufficient money at poor people not make them un-poor?

it destroys any incentive for the near poor to work... it's the road to serfdom.

Getting a sizable check from the govnerment might indeed motivate some to lie around all day, but its not likely to lead to serfdom... (see below for accurate description of serfdom)
Its actually more akin to the wealthy setting up large trust funds for their children... What on earth would motivate the children of the wealthy, who've been set up for life, from ever attempting a career or business? And yet most do ...
A poor person who comes into some money, might be just like one of the lazy trust fund kids, or he/she might be like one of the ambitious ones....

Serfdom is the status of peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century.
Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence. Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also his mines, forests and roads. The manor formed the basic unit of feudal society and the Lord of the Manor and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs formed the lowest social class of feudal society.

from wikipedia

archduke

yes but the argument goes that if there is a return to the Great Power Real Politik then that interconnectedness becomes less important because power and influence become the national goals.

Power and influence in the GPRP depended upon a geographic checkerboard, of national borders. At the time, there was little to no inter action between the peoples or businesses of the countries involved...
Today, try and imagine what would happen if Russia decided to line it's armies up on the Polish border? During the long period leading up to the conflict the economic ties to Western Europe would fray and eventually break. Will the oligarch that helps Putin sustain his authoritarian regime tolerate seeing their vast wealth disappear due to an out dated use of power?
Would the Russian people stand idly by and see their standard of living plummet, or would they take to the streets?
One of the reasons that things like economic sanctions work, even in places like Syria and Iran, is that the elites are affected most by sanctions, especially banking sanctions.
China's ruling class (The Communist oligarch) sustain control over China in part because the economic miracle has delivered to the growing middle class, and the working class. And, as in Russia, an over class of rich would also restrain the govenrment from endangering their golden eggs.
Archduke, I'd be interested in what scenario you think would plunge the world back in time to where the reality of interconnected economies, and personal fortunes of today would be abandoned in favour of GPRP stand off?

Ray Jay wrote:it destroys any incentive for the near poor to work... it's the road to serfdom.

I guess you're saying that "solving" poverty by raising all incomes above some fairly low cut-off level will create a worse situation than the one that's solved. As I read this you could be making one or both of two possible points. One: solving poverty in this fashion is simply immoral regardless of time, place, circumstances. Two: solving poverty in this fashion today in the USA would in some way seriously harm our society's moral foundations.

In either case, you're saying (if I have it right) that the harm done would outweigh giving poor people -- most (?) many (?) of whom are kids -- the resources to improve their lives. I can see how this would theoretically be possible, but as a theory it's one I'd want to be very sure of before I denied the poverty-stricken the charity of a society that's the most affluent (more or less) the world has ever produced.

Purple wrote:I believe I demonstrated conclusively that radically cutting the defense budget would allow us to give every person in poverty more than enough money to bring their income above poverty level.

While you have proven that cutting spending would create that more money would be available, you have not proven the position this would end poverty. Your position presupposes that the money cut from defense spending would be given directly to those living in poverty. While that assumption is an interesting thought experiement, it is not reality. While cuts in defense spending would lead to some increases in domestic policy spending, the more likely outcome is most of it would be returned to the middle and upper classes in the form of tax cuts/breaks.

Additionally, isn't there a question of what would be the inflationary aspect of giving that many people an extra $11,000 a year? I am no economicist and have only a basic understanding but isn't the theory that if people have more money to buy things the prices will increase to meet thus purchasing power? Therefore, wouldn't the prices increase to the point that the poverty would still be there?

(Edit - to add 2nd paragraph instead of creating a whole new post.]

Purple wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:it destroys any incentive for the near poor to work... it's the road to serfdom.

I guess you're saying that "solving" poverty by raising all incomes above some fairly low cut-off level will create a worse situation than the one that's solved. As I read this you could be making one or both of two possible points. One: solving poverty in this fashion is simply immoral regardless of time, place, circumstances. Two: solving poverty in this fashion today in the USA would in some way seriously harm our society's moral foundations.

In either case, you're saying (if I have it right) that the harm done would outweigh giving poor people -- most (?) many (?) of whom are kids -- the resources to improve their lives. I can see how this would theoretically be possible, but as a theory it's one I'd want to be very sure of before I denied the poverty-stricken the charity of a society that's the most affluent (more or less) the world has ever produced.

It's not 100% one way or the other. There has to be some social welfare, and there has to be some incentive to work. However, if you make a blanket decision to give everyone everything they need regardless of their capacity to work, my view of human nature is that there would be insufficient incentive to work, and in time the society as a whole would be too poor to even accomplish your objective.

Ray Jay wrote:

Purple wrote:...if you make a blanket decision to give everyone everything they need regardless of their capacity to work, my view of human nature is that there would be insufficient incentive to work, and in time the society as a whole would be too poor to even accomplish your objective.

I understand. But you're saying that individuals will have no incentive to earn more than about $11,000 a year; the parents of two kids no incentive to take in more than about $23,000. To what percent of Americans do you think this dim view of ambition applies?

rickyp wrote:Archduke, I'd be interested in what scenario you think would plunge the world back in time to where the reality of interconnected economies, and personal fortunes of today would be abandoned in favour of GPRP stand off?

A nationalist leader in Russia comes to power. Spends some time whipping up nationalist fervor amongst the commom people. Tells the Oligarchs what better way to make more money then to directly exploit the people of Eastern Europe by having them under Russian control. After all, there is no way Germany, France or England is going to defend Ukraine or Belarus.

You are also assuming economic sanctions are effective. Isn't there some debate about that. According to this wikipedia entry

However, there is a controversy over the effectiveness of economic sanctions in their ability to achieve the stated purpose. Haufbauer et al. claimed that in their studies 34 percent of the cases were successful. When Robert A. Pape reexamined their study, he claimed that only five of their forty so-called "successes" stood out, dropping their success rate to 4%.

Should we consider 34% success rate effective?

Purple wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

Purple wrote:...if you make a blanket decision to give everyone everything they need regardless of their capacity to work, my view of human nature is that there would be insufficient incentive to work, and in time the society as a whole would be too poor to even accomplish your objective.

I understand. But you're saying that individuals will have no incentive to earn more than about $11,000 a year; the parents of two kids no incentive to take in more than about $23,000. To what percent of Americans do you think this dim view of ambition applies?

That's fair pushback. I would certainly recommend to the majority of people who can earn $30,000 through hard labor to not bother, or at least not report it. After taxes, expenses, and stress it's hard to imagine why they should work, especially when their economically rational neighbors are haing a good time partying it up.

A nationalist leader in Russia comes to power.

Say: Putin?

Spends some time whipping up nationalist fervor amongst the commom people.

He has done that...

Tells the Oligarchs what better way to make more money then to directly exploit the people of Eastern Europe by having them under Russian control

.
He might tell them that. But they probably won't believe him. And why would he bother telling them this lie? Whats his motivation? What have Belarus and The Ukraine got that Russia doesn't already have to offer his billionare industrialists or Russia itself?

After all, there is no way Germany, France or England is going to defend Ukraine or Belarus.

No. But Ukrainians probably will.. So, is the trouble of subjegating the Ukrainians worth the invasion and occupation?
Russia has had its hands full with just the tiny Chechnya... the appetite to occupy a foreign power the size of The Ukraine .... probably isn't there.
(I won't argue Belarus. The people there would probably welcome an invasion.But then Europe wouldn't give a damn either.)
The point is, that the limitations of military power haven't just been taught to the US in Iraq, but also to the Russians in Afghanistan and indeed in Chechnya...
I've been reading quite a lot about political activism in Russia of late, and although Putin is authoratarian he does require customers for Russsian oil and gas in order to move his economy. The extent to which Russia is now an energy economy is startling.
To surrender those customers for some rancorous Ukranians and their wheat fields in The Ukraine seems like a bad bargain.
Frankly, I think you'll strain yourself trying to find a credible place for Russia or China to decide to flex their muscles overtly.
(Its far more likely in The Ukraine that ethnic russians in the country will agitate for "independence or leaving for Russia peacefully. In the far east they out number ethnic Ukranians by quite a margin and there is ethnic tension between the two groups.)

Well, RJ, i think there are some simple fixes with regard to the concern the poor would have no incentive to work. For those who work full-time you simply add the money to their paycheck. If you're only employed part-time or are unemployed you have to do community service, graffiti clean-up or some other work to get the money (maybe set the wage at around $25 an hour so a person would need 500 hours to get the money) There would still be the incentive for the poor who are working at a mininum wage job because they would be making twice what an unemployed person would make (and the unemployed would still have to work 500 hours)

Ricky:

Russia has had its hands full with just the tiny Chechnya... the appetite to occupy a foreign power the size of The Ukraine .... probably isn't there.

Someone tell the Poles that Ricky has looked into Putin's soul and there is probably nothing to worry about.

Frankly, I think you'll strain yourself trying to find a credible place for ... China to decide to flex their muscles overtly.

Ricky, the Chinese agree with you. http://www.chinesemilitary.info/once-ex ... e-counter/

P.S. It seems like they have learned English from the same teacher as you.

PPS. I realize that there is a difference between overt and covert power. If you don't respond to covert muscle flexing, I imagine that overt muscle flexing comes next. Just ask the people of Kuwait.

freeman2 wrote:Well, RJ, i think there are some simple fixes with regard to the concern the poor would have no incentive to work. For those who work full-time you simply add the money to their paycheck. If you're only employed part-time or are unemployed you have to do community service, graffiti clean-up or some other work to get the money (maybe set the wage at around $25 an hour so a person would need 500 hours to get the money) There would still be the incentive for the poor who are working at a mininum wage job because they would be making twice what an unemployed person would make (and the unemployed would still have to work 500 hours)

I think you are moving the goal posts.

To what extent do you think that intergenerational poverty is explained by the failures of our institutions, and to what extent by the individual actions of people in poverty? I'll put my marker at 50/50. I'm guessing you are at 90/10 whereas Dr. Fate is at 10/90.