Elon Musk: Mass Murderer

[Kishkumen]

Yes. It is the duty of a government to consider not only the immediate needs of its citizens, but also, and in a proportionate way, to take steps to ensure their long-term welfare and security.

Part of that necessarily includes long-term investments in physical and human infrastructure that will not benefit its citizens immediately. It also necessarily includes maintaining a world outside the home country that is peaceful and whose citizens are in a fit state to take part in the network of trade and mutual security that will in the long run benefit that government's citizens. One of those benefits is that it will diminish the likelihood that the government in question will from time to time have to spend incalculable sums on military expenditure to quench the fires of a dangerous crisis.

Of course, that spending must be proportionate. As a result, the discussion about overseas aid spending should never be a simple yes/no issue ("Let's splurge" vs "Not a single penny"). A government that talks that way is failing in its responsibilities. A citizen who thinks that way is either naïve or mentally lazy.

To get things in perspective, have a look at this analysis of US government spending:

https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function

The top four categories are:

Medicaid 17.1%
Social Security 16.2%
National Defense 14.1%
Health 13%

International affairs, which presumably includes any aid, plus a lot else, is way down the list at 0.6%

That does not seem a crazy rate of spending, does it? Tipping that 0.6% (and it is by no means all aid) into the four big budget items is unlikely to be life-changing for US citizens, and in the long time it may make them and their children less secure and wealthy.

Excellent post. Any state will end up spending money on its near and far neighbors. I have studied city-states in the Ancient Mediterranean for some years, and they regularly sent money to others or received it from others. It was just part of interstate relations. What amazes me is how little we spent and how much we got out of that small amount. All the good that was done by USAID for such a pittance, comparatively speaking. There was a time when I was among those who marveled at “all that money” we were sending to other countries, thinking it would be better spent here. I chalk that up to my ignorance.

[Physics Guy]

Some other things to understand about national debts are: To whom is the money owed? What options exist to repay them? What will happen if they are not paid?

Much of a rich country's national debt is actually owed to its own citizens, including corporate citizens, who have purchased securities like US Treasury Bills. So the same money which is being counted as an obligation for the government is part of the positive wealth of some of its citizens. These lenders do not want the money all paid back right away, and they don't want the government to stop borrowing more. They have deliberately and voluntarily lent money to their own government, not mainly from patriotism, if at all, but because they consider this to be the safest investment that they can make. These lenders would definitely rather lend their money to the government, and get it repaid with interest, than have to pay higher taxes.

Even foreign lenders are just as happy to lend their money to a government, because they consider it a safe investment. They are not pushing to get their money back quickly, nor do they want to lose the opportunity to lend more money in future.

Furthermore, a government can always pay off all the debts that were issued in the government's own currency, simply by printing more of that currency and handing it over. As a lender, I would not be happy about getting repaid in newly created dollars like that, because it leaves all the previous dollars still there in other people's hands, where they can all be used to outbid me for goods and services. In effect newly minted dollars are worth less than the same number of dollars taken from the existing supply. So if a government does pay its debts by printing money, lenders won't lend it any more money in future, or will only lend at a much higher interest rate. But that's all that will happen.

And that's all that will happen if a country just declares that it won't pay its debts. At least, that's all that will happen to a country like the United States. France once invaded Mexico to try to compel repayment of loans. It's a bizarre little chapter of history that seems hard to believe; a Habsburg prince was briefly installed as Emperor of Mexico. It didn't work out well for Napoleon III in 1867, and nobody is going to invade the USA today over a debt default. Angry T-bill holders aren't going to come around to the Sixth Fleet with baseball bats. They just won't buy any more T-bills.

And so it doesn't make sense to voluntarily stop borrowing money just because you're afraid that you might have to stop borrowing money. As long as people are still willing to lend, then by definition you aren't close to having borrowed too much.

[Doctor Steuss]

Let's use this as an example. Sadly this is not a hypothetical. A leftist borrows as much money and maxes out as many credit cards as possible. She then proceeds to go to Russia and eastern Europe and give the money away to whoever she deems worthy of it. Then unfortunately she's permitted to reenter the US and file for bankruptcy. 7 years later, she'll probably do it all over again. Is this an example of what Jesus was teaching?

Putting aside the irony of you supporting a man who has regularly abused bankruptcy law to engage in wage theft, I think the analogy would need to be altered slightly to match the current topic.

Let's say there's a document that expressly grants power to a group of people to determine how money is spent. People vote some people into that group to act as their representatives. Those representatives then determine that they want to spend money on various causes they deem worthy.

Then, unfortunately, someone who has no authority or power granted within the document regarding how money is spent decides to cut the previously approved funds authorized by those democratically elected representatives. Not only that, they then spend even more money, with no accountably, and borrow exponentially even more money to give more handouts and incentives to the ultra-wealthy. Is violating founding documents, ignoring authorized democratically elected representatives in order to deny money from poor people while simultaneously borrowing exponentially more money to give to wealthy people an example of what Jesus was teaching?

Or I guess we could stick with your analogy, and expand it. A person comes along, takes the money the leftist borrowed to give to poor people, and gives it to all of their wealthy friends. That person then opens up another 20 credit cards in everyone else's names, runs them up to, and says they intend to keep doing this, and giving almost all of the money to their wealthy friends. They say that by running up more debt, and giving it to their friends, it will magically trickle down and pay off all of the credit cards. When it predictably falls apart, they blame it on the leftist.

[canpakes]

Also, we seem to be forgetting that there are plenty of people here in the United States that need charitable aid. In my opinion, the government has no business sending a single penny overseas until A) the national debt is completely paid off, B) the deficit is reduced to $0, and C) there is not a single homeless person in the country.

Can anyone justify the government sending a single penny overseas while those three conditions remain unmet?

To grossly simplify things, every person in the United States receives charitable aid, through expenditures on items like infrastructure and military spending. This is why ajax doesn’t need to spend his own money pouring asphalt for streets to access his business, or drilling his own wells to provide water for his toilet, or needing to stock up on nuclear pitchforks to keep the barbarian Visigoth and Hermunduri hordes at bay. This ‘charity’ via taxation spreads the cost of those tasks around while making all of the benefits much more affordable through efficiencies of scale than if shouldered by the individual directly.

Of course, plenty of folks who will make the argument that you are above will also argue that Social Security and Medicaid are theft, anyway, and that buying houses for veterans amounts to socialism or somesuch. So there remain some things to be worked out within that ABC goal list above.

[Doctor Steuss]

Since Ajax is now pretending to be a fiscal conservative, he might find it interesting to know that compared to federal spending for the same period last year (y'know, when that leftist was running up the credit cards), Trump has spent over $350 billion more so far this year.

That's right; so far this year, the government has spent $4.85 trillion, compared to $4.49 trillion during the same period last year.

Just like when Trump followed Obama, he's already increased spending by 8% right out the gate. Just like when Trump followed Obama, his plan is to massively increase the debt ceiling and borrow exorbitant amounts of money again to help pay for his smash and grab. And, just like when Trump followed Obama, MAGA will sing him praises for bankrupting future generations.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Folks, I really think this post by ajax18 should be carefully considered: *snip*

I totally get where you're coming from, especially with the national debt and people hurting here at home, but I think a little asymmetric thinking is due when you scale up to the nation-state level with regard to to USAID.

1) Foreign aid isn’t charity;it’s strategy. When we invest in things like food programs, healthcare, or stabilizing a government oversea we’re often preventing a much more expensive problem down the road- wars, refugee crises, pandemics, the spread of terrorism, etc. It’s cheaper (and safer!) to stop a fire before it spreads than to wait until it reaches your house.

2) As mentioned here, USAID is a drop in the bucket. The ROI for every ~$1 we spend on aid, we get <$4 back in economic and/or strategic return. It’s a smart investment in global security that benefits us directly and indirectly. A stable world means fewer people showing up at our borders desperate for help, fewer wars we have to get dragged into, and more customers for American-made goods.

3) Taxes aren’t the same as charity. The government does things that no private individual or church group can do, especially on a global scale. No individual American can stop Ebola, rebuild infrastructure after an earthquake, or prevent a famine from turning into a civil war. It takes a nation to act on a global scale.

4) It’s not an either-or situation. We’re not failing to fix poverty or homelessness here because of foreign aid; we’re failing because of domestic policy choices. Blaming USAID for that is like blaming your $5 monthly Spotify bill for your mortgage being too high. It’s nonsense politics.

So yeah, I think there’s room to criticize how money is spent*. But USAID isn’t the villain here. in my opinion, it’s a government program where we get more out than we put in, but we have to take the long view of the policy.

- Doc

*for example we’ve given ~$150B to Israel for defense with another $38B earmarked. Not to mention the trillions we had to spend by getting sucked into Gulf War 2 to take out Saddam Hussein, who posed no direct threat to us whatsoever. USAID is nothing compared to that, and does far more good for us strategically, than our relationship with Israel. You ready to get into WWIII with Iran on behalf of Israel? We have our priorities mixed up, frankly.

[Chap]

Really on the button:

1) Foreign aid isn’t charity;it’s strategy. When we invest in things like food programs, healthcare, or stabilizing a government oversea we’re often preventing a much more expensive problem down the road- wars, refugee crises, pandemics, the spread of terrorism, etc. It’s cheaper (and safer!) to stop a fire before it spreads than to wait until it reaches your house.

2) As mentioned here, USAID is a drop in the bucket. The ROI for every ~$1 we spend on aid, we get more <$4 back in economic and/or strategic return. It’s a smart investment in global security that benefits us directly and indirectly. A stable world means fewer people showing up at our borders desperate for help, fewer wars we have to get dragged into, and more customers for American-made goods.

3) Taxes aren’t the same as charity. The government does things that no private individual or church group can do, especially on a global scale. No individual American can stop Ebola, rebuild infrastructure after an earthquake, or prevent a famine from turning into a civil war. It takes a nation to act on a global scale.

4) It’s not an either-or situation. We’re not failing to fix poverty or homelessness here because of foreign aid; we’re failing because of domestic policy choices. Blaming USAID for that is like blaming your $5 monthly Spotify bill for your mortgage being too high. It’s nonsense politics.

So yeah, I think there’s room to criticize how money is spent*. But USAID isn’t the villain here. in my opinion, it’s a government programs where we get more out than we put in, but we have to take the long view of the policy.

Wonder what kind of "yes but" or "what about" Markk will use to reply to this?

[Doctor Steuss]

It's wild that it took only a singular cult leader for a huge swath of the proletariat to gleefully celebrate the decimation of the cornerstone of enlightened self-interest within neoclassical economic theory.

[Dr Exiled]

Folks, I really think this post by ajax18 should be carefully considered: *snip*

I totally get where you're coming from, especially with the national debt and people hurting here at home, but I think a little asymmetric thinking is due when you scale up to the nation-state level with regard to to USAID.

1) Foreign aid isn’t charity;it’s strategy. When we invest in things like food programs, healthcare, or stabilizing a government oversea we’re often preventing a much more expensive problem down the road- wars, refugee crises, pandemics, the spread of terrorism, etc. It’s cheaper (and safer!) to stop a fire before it spreads than to wait until it reaches your house.

2) As mentioned here, USAID is a drop in the bucket. The ROI for every ~$1 we spend on aid, we get <$4 back in economic and/or strategic return. It’s a smart investment in global security that benefits us directly and indirectly. A stable world means fewer people showing up at our borders desperate for help, fewer wars we have to get dragged into, and more customers for American-made goods.

3) Taxes aren’t the same as charity. The government does things that no private individual or church group can do, especially on a global scale. No individual American can stop Ebola, rebuild infrastructure after an earthquake, or prevent a famine from turning into a civil war. It takes a nation to act on a global scale.

4) It’s not an either-or situation. We’re not failing to fix poverty or homelessness here because of foreign aid; we’re failing because of domestic policy choices. Blaming USAID for that is like blaming your $5 monthly Spotify bill for your mortgage being too high. It’s nonsense politics.

So yeah, I think there’s room to criticize how money is spent*. But USAID isn’t the villain here. in my opinion, it’s a government program where we get more out than we put in, but we have to take the long view of the policy.

- Doc

*for example we’ve given ~$150B to Israel for defense with another $38B earmarked. Not to mention the trillions we had to spend by getting sucked into Gulf War 2 to take out Saddam Hussein, who posed no direct threat to us whatsoever. USAID is nothing compared to that, and does far more good for us strategically, than our relationship with Israel. You ready to get into WWIII with Iran on behalf of Israel? We have our priorities mixed up, frankly.

I'd impeach Trump for this current blunder. Israel has governed our middle east policy for too long and Trump campaigned on stopping these wars. Obviously that was a lie. Ms. Adelson's money controls this guy too much and so does the Israel lobby. Netanyahu has to go as well. That guy is a butcher.

[canpakes]

Ms. Adelson's money controls this guy too much …

This is the reason why I’ve always asserted that rather than Trump being some sort of populist antidote to the world of ordinary politicians, Trump is the ultimate example of what so-called populists define ‘politicians’ to be.

Got money? Need a thing? Trump is your man. There are no other principles in play.