
Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure - paulpauper
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/18/chinese-billionaire-jack-ma-says-the-us-wasted-trillions-on-warfare-instead-of-investing-in-infrastructure.html
======
snow_mac
This is so true. I went to Shanghai about 3 summers ago right when Denver was
finishing up the "A Line" train from Downtown to the Airport. This project
cost over a billion dollars and the damn thing can't run smoothly or stay
operational. Tons of issues. Meanwhile we took the Maglev train from the
Pudong Airport to the Shanghai City Center. The Maglev cost $1.2 billion
dollars [1]. The train can travel up to 270 MPH [1]; it takes about 15 minutes
to get from the Airport to the city. The Denver train? 45 minutes, goes
somewhere around 45 MPH for $1.1 billion dollars [2]. The train in China goes
6x faster then the Denver train.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/go_east_young_man/2005/03...](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/go_east_young_man/2005/03/mines_faster_than_yours.html)

[2] [https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2016/05/31/otoole-
takin...](https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2016/05/31/otoole-taking-rtds-
billion-dollar-a-train/)

~~~
beamatronic
We could have that too if our government had unchecked eminent domain power.
Is that what we want? Seems to be one or the other.

~~~
orev
Not saying it’s the solution, but giving the government that power might
incentivize people to be more involved with local government and demand more
accountability. Right now nobody really pays attention to what they are doing.

~~~
marnett
The US government could build out infrastructure if it desired. We did in the
past and we could today. It doesn't meet the profit margins that the MIC can.

------
achou
Folks, realize that US military spending:

\- backstops the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, which allows the
US to have a large deficit with low risk to its economic system, which
basically means the US can ship paper to other countries and they will send
real stuff back to us in return. Let's not kid ourselves, this has a lot to do
with the US' large military and financial advantage.

\- makes opportunistic authoritarian governments around the world think thrice
before invading their neighbors. Consider what it would be like if the charts
here were moving up and to the right instead of flat:
[https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace](https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-
peace)

\- ensures the relative safety and efficiency of international shipping routes
and underpins global commerce

\- provides funding for basic research has lead to many innovations. DARPA,
anyone?

\- keeps weapons expertise and manufacturing capacity within US borders, which
creates US jobs and reduces the capability of other governments to develop
competitive arms independently, which keeps them within the sphere of US
influence and protection. Other countries look at our military budget and
think "we could never compete, let's just buy their weapons, and make nice
with the US". Think of what the alternative would look like.

We can debate the morality of the specific wars that the US has gotten
entangled in. We can debate the relative size of the military budget, to some
degree. But it would be foolhardly to ignore the upsides to military spending
altogether.

~~~
m_fayer
Thinking that this spending is ok based on your reasons amounts to a tacit
acceptance of a huge amount of dishonesty, I find it quite cynical.

This is a totally ass-backwards way to do stimulus and domestic investing,
with the upside that it lets you do stimulus and domestic investing while
pretending you're not doing it, but doing something macho and patriotic
instead.

This is a way to maintain US economic and diplomatic dominance while
pretending it's all about Defense/The Homeland/Freedom(tm), all while telling
all those soldiers busy getting killed and wounded by (who this time?) and
killing bewildered probably innocent (whooo?) that this is all about loving
and defending your country.

If you can't openly sell empire to your citizens, maybe you shouldn't have an
empire.

~~~
etrautmann
There are multiple points in the parent's post. While I agree that the idea of
unnecessary military spending is noxious, the impact of safe global shipping
and the unmeasurable deterrent effects for global stability may still be
important. It's not clear to me how we measure and assess the value of this
vs. hypothetical and more desirable alternatives.

~~~
m_fayer
If we weren't maintaining safe global shipping and other elements of global
stability on the sly and with a self-serving twist, maybe the vacuum would
have caused the global community to come together to achieve the same ends, in
a more transparent and less lopsided and brutal (one can only hope) way.

~~~
lamarpye
Maybe and Hope are the usually the best plans.

~~~
barrow-rider
The planning equivalent of Thoughts and Prayers.

To speak to the parent's points -- WW1 happened and the League of Nations
failed to prevent an even worse conflagration.

Say what you will about US v USSR, or the post-Cold War US hegemony, there has
been no WWIII.

------
syntaxing
I really enjoyed this post from Reddit[1] that talks about the reasons behind
such a large military spending. I personally didn't like how we increased the
DOD budget this past fiscal year but this post really puts it in a different
perspective.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/71bq8h/cmv_th...](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/71bq8h/cmv_the_military_budget_of_the_us_is/dn9mqdq/)

~~~
mpwoz
Thanks for sharing that, it gave me a lot to think about. Always good to see
things from another perspective.

------
VSerge
US military spending was at over 600 billion dollars in 2017. This is more
than a third of worldwide military spending. It is also more than the combined
spending of at least China, Saudi, Russia, India, the UK, France, and Japan.

See the wikipedia page on military expenditures for budget estimates and their
sources
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

------
baby
Another weird thing to me, as a foreigner in the US, is the fascination people
have for the "troops".

~~~
intopieces
It is the guilt we feel for sending poor people to die for the interests of
the rich, and then abandoning the ones that did survive to subpar healthcare
and broken promises, only to use them as political pawns every 2-4 years.

If we all just say "Thank you!!" over and over again, we are absolved.

~~~
baby
Ah I see, similar to "thoughts and prayers"?

------
mrep
So is the 178 billion china has spent this year which is also growing faster
than the US [0] also wasted then?

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army#Mil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army#Military_spending)

~~~
natalyarostova
Not necessarily. It's a reasonable model, and claim, that there exists some
optimal amount of military spending. It's also a reasonable claim (at the very
least in retrospect) that the US would have done better had it used the
trillions of dollars it spend between 2000-present on
education/health/infrastructure over Iraq etc.

------
jka
International security is important, and military defense spending is a large
requirement for that; despite all the propaganda I personally still view the
U.S. and the west as positive forces for democracy and freedom; although
certainly I'm no fan of 'pushing' these on other countries; I think it's
always better if the benefits of democracy and international co-operation can
become self-apparent and lead to self-guided regime change.

But assuming anyway that the spending is a requirement - the question becomes
how efficient that spending is, and where the money is really going. If it's
being spent efficiently to support defense operations and capabilities, that's
great - if it's going to line the pockets of contractors and corporations spun
up largely to capture wealth, that's not so great (for many cases it's
probably somewhere in a spectrum).

Re-investing whatever efficiencies can be saved from careful economies into
both better military infrastructure and civilian infrastructure seems like
it'd massively benefit everyone. (although worth noting that cost-cutting
itself also has to be done in a way that doesn't impact security; in some
cases I can imagine that defunding risky or questionable projects could in
fact improve security)

------
almost_usual
Might want to put a 2017 in the title "PUBLISHED WED, JAN 18 2017"

------
lixtra
But will he say the same about the country that has the largest standing army?

So many lives wasted in dull duty.

~~~
zachguo
So you think China has the same amount of population as US? Number of military
personnels per capita of US is almost three times of the one of China.

------
mistrial9
I dont care who says this - it is true.

~~~
excalibur
Agreed, completely on point regardless of source. History has proven trickle-
down economics to be ineffective, and Michael Douglas' "greed is good" to be
objectively false.

~~~
barbecue_sauce
Attributing "greed is good" to Michael Douglas is like attributing "Soon the
world will feel the loving grip of the Pax Bisonica!" to Raúl Juliá.

~~~
excalibur
Obviously I'm aware that he didn't write it, and that it doesn't necessarily
reflect his personal views. I was being lazy, but it's also true that when
most people read those words they picture them coming out of his mouth.

------
thisisit
Whenever people talk about failures of government to build infrastructure I
can't help but look back at the brilliant Wired documentary on Shenzhen.

It depicts a boundary line between the city and urban village. And government
had the power to relocate 150k in a snap to get the development going [1]

How many countries can actually do that? Sure, couple of hundreds of people
can be moved but 100k people, I am sure that cause a riot of sorts and project
shut down very quickly.

[1] [https://youtu.be/SGJ5cZnoodY?t=3586](https://youtu.be/SGJ5cZnoodY?t=3586)

~~~
danzig13
That scale would likely not be necessary in the U.S. Shenzen has a 50% larger
population than New York and is like the 7-10th largest city in China.

------
devy
Mod, please add a (2017) date tag. This was not recent.

------
cs702
It would be great if the US were to spend more to get better _communication,
transportation, and education infrastructure_ across the country... but doing
so would require that politicians be willing to prioritize those expenditures
over many others, and that they be willing to raise taxes significantly on
large corporations and the wealthiest segments of the population. Those things
seem unlikely to happen anytime soon.

------
Matticus_Rex
The US wasted trillions on warfare period -- they could have just not spent
it, and either not run up the debt or left that money in private hands.

~~~
donaldknuth123
Oh it went to private hands. Hands that owned stock in Halliburton, Raytheon,
Lockheed Martin etc...

~~~
celim307
Dick Cheney is a traitor and has exploited the American people, and murdered
countless Iraqi and Afghan lives for personal gain.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
And a really dangerous person to go hunting with.

George W Bush had exceptionally terrible taste when it came to his cabinet.

~~~
fmajid
His father had warned him about Cheney and Rumsfeld,that they would stab him
in the back, but he chose to ignore that advice to show his independence:

------
CathayRe
1\. Missing 2017 in the title.

2\. Jack Ma is a Member of the CCP. US spending less on military has a direct
benefits to China.

3\. US infrastructure sucks. To the point it may be barely better than many
developing countries. But it has very little, or if anything to do with
billions invested in DOD.

------
SigmundA
While I agree with the sentiment the reality is much more complicated and
nuanced.

Both the US interstate system and the Internet came from military roots. Its
all about motivation, war and fear of war seems to be great motivators for
funding and building infrastructure.

~~~
helen___keller
But when is the US gonna join in on that public transit & high speed rail cold
war though?

------
pasbesoin
While we continued to fight any and all terrorists in Afghanistan, the Chinese
were moving in with mining and infrastructure proposals including new schools
et al. (I don't know how real and undistorted the "schools" part has proven to
be.) I recall reading about this already, some years ago.

To the extent that reporting was and is accurate, not only were we spending
our "blood and treasure" in this war, we were laying the groundwork for
Chinese economic and political expansion.

Building part of the foundation for the Great Belt, as it were, and as we
learn more more fully, now.

------
sschueller
This is almost a year old.

[edit] I should have been more clear: Please mark the article as 2017 as when
I read it initially I was asking my self why the WEF was now when it usually
is during the start of the year.

~~~
PavlovsCat
This is almost 66 years old:

> _What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on
> this dread road? The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be
> simply stated. The worst is atomic war. The best would be this: a life of
> perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the
> labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system
> or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness
> for the peoples of this earth. Every gun that is made, every warship
> launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from
> those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
> This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of
> its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The
> cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than
> 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000
> population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of
> concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million
> bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could
> have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life
> to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life
> at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is
> humanity hanging from a cross of iron._

\-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

------
alexashka
If you view USA as heavily influenced by corporate interests - waging wars to
further global corporate empires seems like a good deal all of a sudden.

Education? Infrastructure? Corporations don't benefit from that. Ruining
countries and installing 'democracy' to ensure billion dollar contracts? Great
business.

While most of the world still thinks in nationalistic terms - our country vs
theirs, folks who run corporations that span across 100 countries do not and
cannot think in those terms.

~~~
SamReidHughes
Our education system is the most funded in the world, and corporations build
infrastructure and other corporations benefit from it.

------
fowkswe
Why haven't the ecosystem of infrastructure companies lobbied and infiltrated
government the way that defense companies have?

~~~
snowwrestler
Infrastructure spending has sadly become partisan because a higher percentage
of infrastructure workers are unionized than in the broader economy.

Obama and the Democratic Congress delivered a stimulus bill in 2009 that was
largely "shovel-ready" infrastructure spending. Because of that, it was
attacked by the GOP, who then took over Congress and has proceeded to
underfund infrastructure as a means of weakening unions. And of course they're
now flying an "America First" flag and wondering why things aren't better.

The power of companies in the political process is easy to overstate.
Political movements are an industry unto themselves and sometimes easily
overwhelm corporate priorities. The military as a _cultural_ force in America
politics is very powerful... military contractors essentially surf this wave.
They didn't create it; they are far too stupid for that. It was created by
veterans and politicians and the consulting ecosystem that supports them. It
is in some respects the pendulum still swinging back from the darkest days of
the post-Vietnam War period, when people would spit on vets and call them
"baby killers."

At this point in time, construction workers--and especially unionized
construction workers--are not nearly as strong a cultural force, so
infrastructure companies have a much smaller wave to surf.

That could be changing with Trump, but who knows what is real with that guy.
He is all talk on a large number of subjects... he has done what he said he
would in trade and immigration, but not even close in healthcare or
infrastructure. Ironically for all his talk of America First, Trump's personal
attention is focused almost exclusively outward, at allies, trading partners,
and immigrants.

~~~
fowkswe
Good answer, thanks.

You bring up heath care, which is another industry also had a successful role
in shaping American politics. It just seems like real estate developers /
construction companies could up their game a bit to steer things towards
infrastructure projects.

------
rgrieselhuber
When there is a dialectic presented, resist the temptation to choose a
polarity and look for the synthesis instead.

------
gaze
Or health care. Or education.

------
dgudkov
While he has a point, it's worth noting that at the same time China's military
spending have tripled over the last 10 years [1]. Did Jack Ma say anything
about that? Or is he, as a member of the China Communist Party allowed to
criticize only US government?

He is an extremely talented person and smart entrepreneur, but it's hard to
believe that his US foreign affair statements have no background agenda. It
also could be that the main audience for his message is inside China, not
outside of it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_China)

~~~
aduong
It is also worth noting that China's GDP tripled in the last 10 years. In the
same Wikipedia article, the second graph shows a fairly flat military budget
as a percentage of GNP over time as of late.

------
mindcrash
If Jack Ma would have had any criticism on the way China does business or
government he would have been disappeared.

------
mbrodersen
Stating the obvious. The US military, "war" on drugs etc. are massive
employment programs.

------
ctvo
China spends trillions on surveillance and control instead of investing in
social safety nets.

------
potta_coffee
I apologize for the sarcasm but is Jack Ma really a genius for noticing this?

~~~
excalibur
Nope. I think most of us are attempting to agree without placing much
significance on him personally.

------
jmull
He's right, but I don't see what Jack Ma has to do with it.

------
ykevinator
Not sure he's qualified

------
chillacy
I read somewhere that communist countries tend to invest more in
infrastructure: communication and mass transit that bring people together and
allow information to flow faster, since decision making is centralized. Of
course China is no longer a planned economy and this applied more to the 20th
century than now.

------
darkmuck
Much of the defense spending has been largely a jobs program that employs
thousands of people

~~~
snow_mac
How about we employ construction workers and engineers to build stuff that
makes America truly "Great" again instead of this crap about lets build better
bombs

------
aphextron
>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.

The US spent $14 trillion upholding a world order of free trade and
international maritime law which directly benefited China and was responsible
for its own export based growth over the last 30 years. We're seeing that
global order realign now, with things like Brexit and Trump, but I'm not sure
we want a world without the US spending this kind of money.

Would it be a better if China controlled all navigation within the South China
Sea? Why don't we just let Putin roll over the Baltics? That's the real
reasoning behind US defense spending. Sure you can point to Iraq and
Afghanistan line items, but the vast majority of recurring spending is on
strategic naval and air forces to pursue long term objectives like this.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _US spent $14 trillion upholding a world order of free trade and
> international maritime law_

I am a huge supporter of the U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation duties. It's
expensive, and it's worth it. But carpet bombing Baghdad does nothing for our
trade routes.

~~~
aphextron
>I am a huge supporter of the U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation duties. It's
expensive, and it's worth it. But carpet bombing Baghdad does nothing for our
trade routes.

Every reasonable person thinks Iraq was a mistake in hindsight. Of course it
was. But that _does not_ negate the other 85% of all US defense spending which
has been a shield against tyranny for the vast majority of humanity. Our
support of NATO is the only reason eastern Europe is still independent. Our
defense of South Korea is the only reason Seoul still exists. Yes there have
been mistakes made with having this level of intervention in the world. But to
give in to this kind of whataboutism rhetoric that sees the US as an evil
empire, in a world full of Russias and Chinas, is just insanity.

~~~
Redoubts
>But that does not negate the other 85%

If 15% of military spending was such a wild blunder, what’s makes you so sure
the remaining 85% is solid spending?

------
corodra
Um... I know it's part of what the cool kids do. Shitting on the US. But...
this is the pot calling the kettle black.

China has been ramping up their own military spending like crazy the past few
years. Plenty of articles from CNN and other media "The US should be scared of
the Chinese military because of XYZ". Their infrastructure programs are just
as bad as here. Difference is, we have actual code enforcement and building
regulations that, yes, raise the price and increase in time to build/repair.
But that also ensures that you get fewer buildings and public projects that
crumble after a few years.

I also find it interesting that a lot of people jump on public transit as a
poster child of "infrastructure". The economics for mass transit over large
stretches SUCKS. It's one of the worst investments into public good.

Let's take a place I use to live in just 6 months ago, Colorado Springs. It's
about 60-70 miles south of Denver. The Springs is a decent sized city (270k
population). Roughly 21% of springs residents work in the Denver area. This
was evaluated because I-25 is the main road between the two cities and a
majority of it is just 2 lanes. Back ups. Oh my God. The back up traffic was
so fucking bad. If I had to do a contract in Denver and had to be there at
9am, I had to be out on the road at before 6:45am to make it around 8:45am.
That's if there wasn't an accident along the way. Anyways, a cost analysis was
done to either provide mass transit between the two cities or give I-25
another lane on a ~50 mile stretch.

So, let's see, that's about 56,700 people that have a nearly daily need of
going back and forth. To make it attractive for people to use, it has to be
cheaper than standard car fuel costs. Yes, there's maintenance costs that
SHOULD be considered. But normal people would never figure that in. That's
like expecting people to "Read the terms and services". Driving my Jetta, it's
about 4 gallons round trip. Between 8-12 bucks a day in fuel, depending on gas
prices. Now, a car provides a level of freedom too. I can leave whenever I
want. Go when I want. If you ever relied on mass transit for work (I did when
I lived in Seattle and in Portland), you spend a lot of hours waiting. You
show up early for the bus to take you to the WES train, which you wait for,
that takes you to the Blue Line tram, that you have to wait for, that you then
go to roughly where you need to be on foot. Essentially, you save little
practical time. Yes, you can read. My answer. Library card and free audio
books. Maybe if the cost is $5 for the day between CS and Denver. But more
than that. I'll drive. I like sleeping when I can.

Oh and commuters don't run all day. Just the peak hours to and from work. As
in. You don't get to "stay in the city for a little while". You have to go.
Immediately after work. There's no waiting around. Have to work late? Got to
call a friend with a car. You owe him gas money now as well.

Okay, now to the economics. IF, major if, 56,700 people take the commuter
everyday at $5 X about 20 workdays a month X 12 months = $6.8 million a year.
Let's say $7 million. Every year. Revenue generated. Now, minus fuel. Minus
train maintenance. Minus employees. Even a $10 daily ticket only gives $14
million. For a how big of an initial investment? A billion dollar one? Even at
half a billion, that's 35 years to break even if all the employees volunteer
and the fuel was free. Shit, I forgot about insurance for whoever runs that
train. In 35 years, you'd probably need a major revamp again. It's like being
on a tram or train from the 80s/90s at this point. Another major cost sink.

But some of those 56k+ commuters, still need their cars. I built custom
servers, delivered and installed them in Denver. You ever carry a 3u filled
with hard drives? A lot of commuters are manual laborers too. You know, poor,
hard working folks. Guys who do plumbing or electrical work. Dry wall.
Carpenters. Those are just the commuters that pop in mind. They have too many
tools and materials to ever imagine using public transit if their job requires
them to actually carry their own gear. Plus, they have to travel around on a
moment's notice.

Or spend the $350 million to expand the interstate which nearly everyone uses
ALREADY. Logically speaking, what would politicians approve? You think they're
going to risk having their heads roll for a half billion dollar investment
that SOME people MAY use? Or expand what people ALREADY use?

You can apply the same logic to easily 90% of the rest of the country and come
to similar results. There are definitely outliers to where it works. But let's
not shoehorn ideas where they don't belong.

In reality though, being in the lead of commuter train technology is a lot
like being in the lead of horse drawn carriage tech.

Are there infrastructure problems here? Fuck yea there are. The aging water
system is major one. Electrical grids are being upgraded but there are trouble
spots. Same with gas lines. Telecomm needs an over haul. Too many cities are
also bottle necked on highways. If a natural disaster happens in certain
cities, there's only one way out. Plus, just in time inventory causes major
issues when these places do get cut off due to flooding. I'm not even getting
started on social issues. Legit issues of dealing with foster care, criminal
rehabilitation, mental health facilities, etc. Oh fucking hell, what about
education? That too is a shit show. But to cry that other countries have
"better trains"... seriously? How about we first deal with an aging water
system before we shed tears for high-tech trains.

Also, wrong towards "It doesn't matter who says it". It really does. Because
the connotations start to pop up. People start to bring up what that person
"does right". It burns my ass that yes, the right conversation finally starts,
then red herrings out to some bullshit territory like "more mass transit". No.
We don't need that. We shouldn't solve Chinese problems in America. Trains are
not our damn focus. Let's not forgot, they are sinking in debt just as bad as
us. They've postured for a long time of being a "cash society". That little
fairy tale is unraveling on them. They're not magically better. Factories
closing. Human rights violations up the wazoo. Let's not miss how xenophobic
they are. You think non-Han Chinese have a wonderful time? Hell, there's a
government program to end their own Muslim communities in the western parts.
They have, essentially, government minders that report on their non-party-
approved activities. A forced assimilation program in essence. Oh, and that
island that was "always there and always Chinese territory".

It's also funny, "invest in the Mid west". Really? I thought you all hate the
mid west for mostly voting for republicans. Now, it's "Ma is right. We need to
invest in the mid west" Come on! Seriously? And people also thought we should
all politically follow Zuckerburg since he's rich and techie. How'd all that
work out?

I'm all for investing into different parts of America. But shouldn't we invest
in the Mid West because it's part of America and is struggling and we should
help each other out? Not because some rich guy said so?

This got off to rant territory pretty bad. But this is silliness and someone
needs to call it out. The comments in HN to this article is a prime example
that the one problem this country has is too many people look elsewhere for
answers instead of internally. It's complained that companies hire from the
outside to lead/manage instead of internally. That thought process is
represented here too.

------
TrevorAustin
[deleted]

~~~
gammateam
Typically you want to find the mistake in the central point and explain why
it's mistaken

~~~
TrevorAustin
My bad, I totally misread something and posted too quickly

------
mythrwy
Jack Ma is exactly right.

We put a huge pile of money on the ground and lit it on fire killing a bunch
of people in the process.

Maybe someone smarter than me can explain how this was a good idea but I just
don't get it.

~~~
donaldknuth123
Good idea for whom is what you should be asking. That money wasn't burned, it
was sent to the bank accounts of major stockholders in Raytheon, Lockheed
Martin, Halliburton etc... Lets be very clear, there are people who benefited
and still benefit greatly from US Military spending.

~~~
mythrwy
As there are people who benefit from bank robbery. After all, the money is
still around to be spent by the bank robbers.

But it's still theft from the system and is a transfer of purchasing power
from those who produce to those who do not. Or in case of military
contractors, from those who produce to those who destroy. Professionally.

~~~
donaldknuth123
I'm not opining on the morality of it, just saying that the idea that the
money disappeared or was put in a pile and burnt is obviously silly.

~~~
mythrwy
Except some of it _literally_ went up in flames.

Have you seen the footage of bombing of ISIS cash dump with US currency flying
out? Guess the pallets of dollars going over there for reconstruction was the
source.

It's a waste. Waste of spending, waste of effort, waste of resources. The
human effort and material spent on that endeavor could have done a lot for
this country.

Also morality aside, if we are empire, if we are going to police the world, we
are doing so in a very unsustainable fashion.

This is just what I can't help but see. Maybe I'm wrong. Not really trying to
argue but damn, this a big elephant of wasteful effort and resource
allocation.

------
onetimemanytime
OK, Jack Ma, what if USA wasn't strong enough to be feared by others? What
would we have? War. Pax Americana is probably a great investment, others might
want to be thankful (up to a point) as peace has lifted all boats.

Plus, that $14 Trillion was invested in US companies, granted military leaning
ones but still the money was put back in our economy. And USA sold and will
sell a lot of weapons because of that R & D

~~~
mathieubordere
Do you call the situation in the Middle Ease peace? Not saying that it's the
US's fault ...

~~~
beamatronic
It could be much worse.

------
curtis
The reason why China is spending a lot more on infrastructure than the U.S. is
because they didn't have a lot of infrastructure to begin with and if they
want some they have to build it.

The U.S. already has most (not all) of the infrastructure we need. A lot of
what we need to build is to replace existing infrastructure which is getting
old but technically still works.

Comparing Chinese to American infrastructure spend is comparing apples to
oranges.

Furthermore, if you want to look at where America is wasting money, compare
the percentage of GDP Canada spends on healthcare to the percentage the U.S.
spends. The difference is likely larger than the 5% or so of GDP we've been
spending on defense.

And keep in mind that most of U.S. spending on defense isn't warfare, it
really is defense, partly because we have obligations to defend other
countries, some of which might be at substantial risk right now (We have no
obligation to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression, but we most
definitely have an obligation to defend Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia).

~~~
skh
Our roads are bad. We lack decent public transportation. Our internet speeds
are slow and overly exspensive. We do not have most of the infrastructure we
need.

Jack Ma calls it warfare you call it defense. Whatever term you wish to use is
fine with me. The trillions we spent on defense in Iraq and Afghanistan
certainly was not well spent.

We do have an obligation to defend the Ukraine against Russian attacks. That
was the deal they made with us when they gave up nukes in the early 90s.

~~~
mikeash
The deal with Ukraine only requires us to defend them against nuclear attacks,
and even then, the only requirement is to seek action in the UN. For
conventional attacks, our only obligation is not to attack ourselves.

This is such a common misconception. I wonder where it came from. The Budapest
Memorandum is short and understandable. Is this just a game of telephone gone
badly wrong, or is there propaganda at work?

~~~
skh
Thanks for the correction. I suppose propaganda is at play in the
misconception. Also it wouldn’t make sense for Ukraine to not want a better
security guarantee given the history between Russia and Ukraine.

