Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazyjones | Hacker News Reader

Every time Basic Income is discussed here in the first world, people mention monthly amounts that would sustain their comfortable lifestyles. The article links to a project where the basic income grant was just about enough to reduce extreme poverty (about 45 times minimum hourly wage, that would mean USD 400-500/month in the US/Europe), thus conclusions (both for and against) about much higher basic income schemes in the developed world are not valid.

By the way, with the US military budget you could provide similar Basic Income for about 3.75 billion people. Just saying ...

View on HN

You had me going right until the closing line

  > By the way, with the US military budget you could 
  provide similar Basic Income for about 3.75 billion 
  people. Just saying ...

I am quite sure what I'm about to say will no doubt, sound hawkish to anyone outside of the United States. To some Americans even. But that is the forbidding truth.

The reason the United States has to spend so much on defense - constantly one-upping the bad actors of the world [1] - is because no other nation will ( or wants to ? ). Perhaps if Western Europe stepped to its end of the bargain, U.S. won't have to.

President Obama summed it up nicely in a recent 60 Minutes interview with CBS News' Steve Kroft:

   Steve Kroft: I think everybody applauds the efforts
   that you've made and the size of the coalition that
   has been assembled. But most of them are contributing
   money or training or policing the borders, not getting
   particularly close to the contact. It looks like once 
   again we are leading the operation. We are carrying...

  President Obama: Steve, that's always the case. 
  That's always the case. America leads. We are the
  indispensable nation. We have capacity no one else
  has. Our military is the best in the history of 
  the world. And when trouble comes up anywhere in 
  the world, they don't call Beijing. They don't call 
  Moscow. They call us. That's the deal.

  Steve Kroft: I mean, it looks like we are doing 90 
  percent.
 
  President Obama: Steve, there is not an issue ...
  when there's a typhoon in the Philippines, take a look
  at who's helping the Philippines deal with that situation.
  When there's an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who's
  leading the charge making sure Haiti can rebuild. That's
  how we roll. And that's what makes this America.[2]

[1] U.S. Navy unveils high-speed rail gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHN-vplJZg

http://www.onr.navy.mil/media-center/fact-sheets/electromagn...

[2] President Obama: People Don't Call Beijing, Moscow, They Call Us When Trouble Comes Up In The World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XZRQgT9D5k

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obama-60-minutes/

> The reason the United States has to spend so much on defense ... is because no other nation will

I don't think it's clear which way the causality runs there.

Yes but if others are not because we are...how does one do the hand-off without leaving a gap in worldwide military operations?

What has our immense military budget exactly achieved? It hasn't defeated ISIS, brought peace to Syria, stopped Putin's aggressive expansionism, or ended North Korea's nuclear testings. Maybe Western Europe isn't interested in the bargain to begin with. From what is the US defending itself against with excessive military spending when we already have nuclear weapons that function as an effective deterrent? It doesn't seem like our military budget is preventing worldwide crises and nuclear development in rogue countries.

What I was hinting at with my closing line that the first world spends a lot of money apparently fighting - among other things - symptoms of poverty and illiteracy. Perhaps there's a better way to spend some of that money, although the military-industrial complex would disagree strongly.

As for the "the US does it because noone else will" - true, but it's not because we don't want to spend the money and sacrifice our troops. It's because we still believe that fighting fire with fire is wrong (and the results so far speak for themselves).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com