“Our Own” = billionaires, fellow politicians, and corporations. No one elses needs apply.
Exactly … national aid means helping billionaires and share holders of major corporations
There is always debates, discussions, arguments and special committees when it comes to talking about helping people who actually need help to stay alive or even lead decent lives in their own country.
Giving money to billionaires? It’s never a question of ‘if’ … it’s always a question of ‘how much’.
A lot of people assume the US is just giving money mostly like cash too when a majority is really military equipment/training. It’s kind of a win for the US because it supports their political goals in the region, gives them a chance to test weapon systems in real conditions, replace these weapons with more modern and advanced versions for the US military, and the money “paid” for these systems also mostly stays in the US economy anyway.
This is definitely not talked about enough. Most of this money is going to US companys to buy replacement equipment and ammo. There have been a lot of jobs create to fulfill the enormous orders.
This is termed the “broken window fallacy” in economics.
And sure increasing spending on military production creates jobs. But spending that money on improving infrastructure also creates jobs and you end up with a nice bridge you can use afterwards. Opportunity costs are a removed, choices have to be made, and choosing military spending does equate to fewer resources for other things.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% in support of giving military aid to Ukraine. And ending the war sooner will have economic benefits by fixing the grain supply problems which is driving up food prices around the world. That’s a good economic argument for it. “Broken window” fallacies aren’t a good argument for it.
Also the general instability caused by this war leads to a lot of economic problems.
But yeah the main economic benefit it ending the war sooner. Ukraine is going to win this, it’s just a matter of how long it will take. More support for Ukraine means the war ends sooner which less economic costs from the disruption in trade caused by the war.
Yes, the US is not sending billion in Ukraine. The US government is sending billion to the US military industry for them to make more weapon to send in Ukraine.
This is billions of dollars invested to increase the size of the US military industry.
Yeah, and a really important part is that many of the things being sent are things that would never be used again by the US and would just be thrown away, in which case it’s literally effectively free.
E.g. old shells, M113, a bunch of other stuff
The US isn’t sending stuff fresh off of the assembly line.
Thank you! I have to explain this to too many people. Not only all those benefits, but the huge amount of invaluable data on a more modern warfare. The whole OEF/OIF was more occupy and try to build up. This type of fighting can really help with how new technologies mix with war fighting tactics. We also learn what not to do, or at least get a good reminder on what not to do. OPSEC and all.
Also isn’t a lot of the aid just loans that need to be paid back eventually? Or in return for deals on other things that we need like grain and whatnot?
I think getting shot or blown up is just as bad as starving, so I vote we do both, aid Ukraine and domestic poor people.
We won’t even give our school kids free lunch.
Seems a bit rude. Could’ve said, “please fuck off, eh!”
deleted by creator
Is anyone else having issues copying this image? I can’t open it directly, it’s weird.
As others said, it’s not billions to Ukraine really, it’s billions to the people who are about to profit off Ukraine (if they aren’t already). Want to buy a piece of the country’s assets? Have at it, here: https://privatization.gov.ua/en/
How many people are starving in the western world?
Only talking about the US here:
Oh man. I might be too European for this shit. I am already surprised how my government fucks shit up. But this is on another level.
The worst part is that it is not incompetence, it is intentional.
It’s the nature of us to build a pyramid of power and wealth. It will never change.
But we can influence the angle of said pyramid.
Have you ever thought about opening up a movie theater?
No. Why are you asking? Are you looking for investors?
Nah, you just seemed to be exceptionally good at projecting
Looks like you already got your answer, but it’s honestly shocking how terribly such a large portion of the population is literally starving, or a single paycheck from tipping the scales against them.
Shocked that a system that makes food distribution a for profit endeavor rather than one with the goal of feeding people?
Yea. Hearing such stories is always shocking.
I myself believe capitalism to be the only viable option, but it needs a system of correction, whenever it leans into a self destructive path.
And said development is a self destructive path. Sooner or later people will revolt against a system that binds them to an unpleasant destiny. And rightfully so.
I fear what happens with capitalism the moment economic growth slows down any further. My country might have more control over capitalism, balancing out the negative, but due to demographic change and some bad decision because of climate change and migration, it feels like things are already getting out of hand.
It’s been a long time that I’ve been anticipating a future of opportunity.
Capitalism is the problem, not the solution
Capitalism only “works” due to the inequalities and unjust hierarchies it creates
And socialism and communism fails for the same reason. Because humans always or against each other towards inequalities and hierarchies.
You cannot escape human nature. Capitalism at least offers the slight chance to better your own position. If you are born smart or very dedicated, you might escape your situation.
Because humans always or against each other towards inequalities and hierarchies.
I don’t subscribe to this cynical view of humankind. It is systems like capitalism that introduce these inequalities and hierarchies. In a system based on “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need,” there would be no need to establish inequities and hierarchies. In fact, in such a system, it would run against one’s own best interests to invest in such destructive paths.
You cannot escape human nature
-
It is human nature to exist in a social group that upholds the interest of self as well as those around us. Are you projecting your own shortcomings onto the rest of us? That seems unfair of you.
-
Even if your cynical viewpoint were correct, this is still false. We are beings of higher intelligence, not bound by the confines of instinct. We have language that we can use to develop new systems and new understandings that aren’t inherently destructive like capitalism.
Capitalism at least offers the slight chance to better your own position
LMAO what? Capitalism does the very opposite. You are victim of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” mindset of capitalism. It’s false propaganda. You’ve been deceived. (Or maybe you are benefiting from this system and therefore want people to believe this, which … says something not so good about your character.)
If you are born smart
If you’re born smart, you do have privileges and opportunities that others do not have. This itself is an inequity that we should work to correct, and not something to be proud of.
or very dedicated
And there it is! The good ol’ bootstraps came out. It was only a matter of time.
Because humans always or against each other towards inequalities and hierarchies.
I don’t subscribe to this cynical view of humankind.
While you don’t have to do so, I believe there is no better way than to see the harsh truth of our existence. And it is not ideal and will never be.
Sure we can and have to strive for betterment. But ignoring human nature is and has always been a mistake. In smaller groups communism happens to work. But attempts at larger groups always fail. It is not possible for us to think bigger than our familiar groups. And people that believe to be different are simply wrong, because they themselves thereby become the opposing group that believes to have a missionary duty in some twisted belief of righteousness. Combatting human nature is so hard in fact, that letting it run loose is far simpler. The little attempts or let us call them correction measures we call rules are already hard to maintain.
It is systems like capitalism that introduce these inequalities and hierarchies. In a system based on “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need,” there would be no need to establish inequities and hierarchies. In fact, in such a system, it would run against one’s own best interests to invest in such destructive paths.
Doesn’t work. Can only be maintained in optessive dictatorships. UDSSR and China.
You cannot escape human nature
- It is human nature to exist in a social group that upholds the interest of self as well as those around us.
Only applies to this extend onto smaller groups. Groups sizes of large families. Clan structures and such kind. The bigger the group, the smaller the interest in others existence. And again this is rooted in human nature and human evolution.
Are you projecting your own shortcomings onto the rest of us?
No.
- Even if your cynical viewpoint were correct, this is still false. We are beings of higher intelligence, not bound by the confines of instinct.
We are social animals. And you are right, due to our intellect we are capable to break free from our instincts and we are capable to distance ourselves from our irrational social evolutionary traits. We are capable to rationalise it. Analyse our own behaviour patterns and make theories why that is. But Intellect does not free us from our evolutionary given brain functions and structures. One example is war. We are unable to evade violence. In some situations we just lean into it. And this has been for over 4000 years. 4000 years and human behaviour didn’t change by much. Just new tech.
We have language that we can use to develop new systems and new understandings that aren’t inherently destructive like capitalism.
Every social form is inherently destructive in some way. There are no exceptions. Human nature is flawed and this will always be represented in the systems we create for order and structure.
Capitalism at least offers the slight chance to better your own position
LMAO what? Capitalism does the very opposite. You are victim of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” mindset of capitalism. It’s false propaganda. You’ve been deceived.
I am not deceived in any way. I can only remind you of what socialism does. In the DDR they assigned young people jobs already in school. Deciding who will be allowed to study at university and who will not. Capitalism gives you the choice. It does not need oppression and dictatorship to work.
(Or maybe you are benefiting from this system and therefore want people to believe this, which … says something not so good about your character.)
I do indeed profit from the system because I was given the option to decide what to do with my life. And I decided to study at University.
If you are born smart
If you’re born smart, you do have privileges and opportunities that others do not have. This itself is an inequity that we should work to correct, and not something to be proud of.
Being smart is something one should not be proud of? What about beauty? And what do you mean with correction an inequity? Drugs to lower peoples mental capacity down to the average? Or even lower? Your argument seems weird to me, I do t think I understood it correctly. You should rephrase it.
or very dedicated
And there it is! The good ol’ bootstraps came out. It was only a matter of time.
Dedication and hard work is no guarantor for success. It or defensively helps. After my studies I always spend extra time to understand capital investment, because I am trying to learn as much as possible. I am for sure spending 10-12 hours a day learning and another 1-1,5 to build my knowledge about finances. Because I believe that with this extra time invested, I will be more capable to profit from my future salary with wise financial decisions. Capitalism has given us the internet. And the internet is full of knowledge. And especially the internet has enabled me to invest time into other things that interest me.
None of the good things you mentioned are the result of capitalism and are in fact strangled by capitalism. The internet started as a military project, which is not inherently capitalist, and if anything the internet as we know it is an example of the potential of anarchism. Same with much of our infrastructure, such as international railways/highways, public libraries, state and national parks…
You also grossly overestimate how much your choices and hard work contribute to success while underestimating sheer luck and privilege.
I … can’t really respond to everything you wrote, partially because it’s a borderline gish gallop, but most of your statements have been addressed by leftist and post-leftist literature.
I’d recommend reading up on anarcho-communism and anarcho-primitivism. They’re quite different theories that work to solve the unjust and destructive system of capitalism. Also read up on the history of leftist movements in Latin America and how US intervention was used to derail them (US is responsible for the rise of authoritarianism/Soviet alignment in Cuba and the derailment of Sandinistas in Nicaragua, just as two examples.) While not specifically leftist, I’d also recommend reading something like Caste by Isabel Wilkerson to understand racial hierarchies and Everyday Sexism by Lara Bates about gender hierarchies.
Frankly, capitalism is killing our people and destroying the planet, and it urgently needs to be stopped. It’s an inherently destructive system, and it can’t be fixed. It must be replaced.
-
60% Americans live check to check
Calculating what you can barley afford to eat is shitty enough
