|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
EDIT- The no tipping crowd reminds me of the people who would come into the pizza shack and believe that they should be able to get an X-Large pizza with 5 toppings, Wings, Salad, Bread, and a 2-Liter for 20 dollars, delivered free to their door in 20 minutes with a mountain of paper plates, cups, dipping sauces, and Parmesan packets, all made from top quality ingredients. That and all the employees should be paid 12 bucks an hour and get health care and vacation time.
Their thinking was- well the pizza should cost this much. The superficial cost breakdowns were funny. Even funnier was the utter frustration they endured when actually challenged to really break down the math and take all costs into consideration. |
I don't understand how favoring one system of payment over another for services rendered equates what you describe. The latter is a group of people asking something that is almost assuredly impossible for a local restaurant to provide. The former is not, as is proven by the fact that many countries do business as they desire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
I agree that American defense spending needs to go down. But your characterization of American defense activities are horribly one-sided.
|
I dislike that term. One-sided. I dislike it almost as much as I dislike the way the media uses the term balanced. Each implies there must be two genuinely valid sides to the discussion, and the only way to arrive at the truth is to give both sides reasonable representation.
No one is suggesting zeroing our defense budget (as much as I'd like a military free world, even I've admitted to them being necessary). I don't think anyone most people are even seriously suggesting bringing our spending down in line with other nations. The issue comes down to whether America should spend enough to be a military power, or whether America should spend enough to be a global bully. I don't think there's two valid sides to this issue; one is good for both the average American citizen and the world, the other isn't. If you call that one-sided extremism and have contempt for it, okay. |
For a very long time, pre-dating the first Bush but lasting through to the next Bush administration, American military spending was predicated on being able to fight two wars at once. I believe the source of this philosophy was the Cold War, and the idea that we might be bogged down in Asia and have to fight in Europe.
Well, we've been fighting two wars for over seven years now, and both outside of the Cold War framework. The doctrine has to change, and in fact Obama has changed the doctrine. But he's still left with all the investment, and the messy process of pulling back without betraying current objectives or wasting current commitments.
Defense spending is around $650 billion/year, or over 4% of GDP (but given that GDP estimates are probably high, perhaps nearer to 5% of actual GDP). Given demographic pressures and our current debt, this kind of spending is unsustainable. It is also, as you say, possibly disadvantageous. A better figure for a robust military able to defend the Americas, assist allies in direct defense, and patrol the sea lanes would probably be closer to 2.5% of GDP or $400 billion/year. You may believe that $1,333/American is too high a price to pay for national defense. But the problem is that as technology advances, assembling and readying defense personnel and procurement becomes exponentially more unwieldy and time-consuming. Even the draft is out-dated, as there is an astonishing consensus among military leaders that draftee soldiers are undesirable for multiple reasons. If a country spends too little on defense, and a war breaks out, that country will need two or three years to effectively ramp up training, procurement, and catch up with an aggressor.
Pax Americana has lasted for so long that its difficult to imagine an alternative. Although, in some ways, the dreadful inability of a superpower to hold down a country with a fraction of the population has discouraged other powers from aspiring to aggressive warfare. Nevertheless, lessons are forgotten over time, and as American power wanes, effective coalitions will need to replace a world peace enforced by American arms.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
I am an ex-pat, as well. But, its rich to accuse me of being snide after I just responded to your snide comment. I mean, you set the tone on this one, Fox. |
And in my case, the answer is yes, it gets old. I try to go easy, but verbal hostility is part of the way I was raised. It's not an easy habit to shake.[/quote]
Its not a big deal, really. A lot of other people in this world care a lot more about tone. But on the internet, in particular?
INTJs are terrible with tone and being sensitive in general. Its a habit you'll break only with great effort and difficulty.
So go ahead and feel free to piss on the ideas I've presented above. I've got a lot so I don't have to be protective of any single one of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| But he's still left with all the investment, and the messy process of pulling back without betraying current objectives or wasting current commitments. |
And that's understandable; we can't ask the impossible. I would like to see a greater commitment out of the Obama Administration to this end (I don't think they're shooting for the minimum amount of time required to wind down and get out of our current engagements; I understand they may feel there are some objectives that can still be achieved, but from a long-term perspective I'm not inclined to agree). More importantly, though, I'd like to see a greater commitment towards this end from the Legislature. They control the purse strings, and certain influential parties are set on increasing rather than toning down the defense budget.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Defense spending is around $650 billion/year, or over 4% of GDP (but given that GDP estimates are probably high, perhaps nearer to 5% of actual GDP). |
Isn't this just the Department of Defense budget? I'm under the impression that we actually spend substantially on defense outside of that budget as well. Even some time back people like Robert Higgs were saying that our total spending on defense went to over a trillion dollars. I don't know if that's exactly correct (since he attempted to link anything even remotely or indirectly related to defense to the total number), but he is correct that we spend more than the base Department of Defense budget, and I do think that should be counted.
In any case, this doesn't contradict the point you go on to make, it just makes it a somewhat more severe disparity between what we actually spend, and what you end up suggesting we should spend (assuming you're not saying we should continue with those other expenditures independent of the base budget in a business-as-usual fashion).
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Given demographic pressures and our current debt, this kind of spending is unsustainable. It is also, as you say, possibly disadvantageous. A better figure for a robust military able to defend the Americas, assist allies in direct defense, and patrol the sea lanes would probably be closer to 2.5% of GDP or $400 billion/year. You may believe that $1,333/American is too high a price to pay for national defense. |
$400 billion a year period, with no supplemental spending beyond that, would not enrage me; 2.5% of GDP is around where France and England are, and that seems equitable. $400 billion a year as the Department of Defense budget supplemented by hundreds of billion in other defense spending is still too expensive in my estimation. I don't deny the value of having the latest technology (though I do accept the analysis of our Defense Secretary that some things -- like secondary engines on our F-35s -- simply go beyond necessity or even desirability for their cost), and I don't deny the value of having people on hand trained to operate that technology. I'd rather see our defense spending go to technology and training than on needless (and frankly counter-productive) operations, and I think we can fund the technology and training on far less than we spend now, with some left over. Like I said, I'm not looking to sink our defense spending to oblivion, just moderate it; I think most people even remotely serious about the issue (including those with a natural inclination towards being idealists who are willing to put those ideals aside for the sake of reality, but not including those who stand by their ideology at the cost of real-world consequences) feel the same way.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Pax Americana has lasted for so long that its difficult to imagine an alternative. Although, in some ways, the dreadful inability of a superpower to hold down a country with a fraction of the population has discouraged other powers from aspiring to aggressive warfare. Nevertheless, lessons are forgotten over time, and as American power wanes, effective coalitions will need to replace a world peace enforced by American arms. |
And in my eyes, the sooner we move onto this model, the better off the average American citizen will be. It's coming whether we will it or not, and by embracing it, we can save ourselves some pain. The fact that some people -- especially certain people in power -- would rather let average citizens bear the brunt of a futile attempt to maintain an unsustainable situation is aggravating, and I think it's justification for some hostility on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
How much does the average New Zealander make straight out of college? Probably not as much as I made during college.
Also, I had a CAT scan, which accounts for $1,000 of that fee. When I had insurance, it was a mere $20. As I said, it was a lapse in insurance during a semester off of uni. Parental coverage lapses when a student isn't full time. Live and learn. It was not a lot of money, as I worked throughout college |
You may have made more out of college than an average new zealand grad but your income would not have covered the cost of a major surgery. I think that is the case being made by some about public healthcare.
In countries with socialised health care, people are not financially wiped out by illness. They do pay higher taxes of course but the tradeoff seems beneficial overal.
Anyway, to each his own. If you do not mind paying 1500 bucks for a day at the hospital, no worries.
Each type of system has its flaws of course but with two kids I am pretty happy to have universal healthcare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This was a lapse of 5 months that I took off. With insurance it would have been $25. I was back on health insurance as soon as I returned to uni. I've had health insurance ever since. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
