Preparation for war

fancythat

^If our commitment to NATO is real we and other countries should give priority to defence spending.^

Do you still agree with NATO? As much as you did?
And Whitewavemark2 - is your committment to it as strong as it was? I am not sure from your posts that it is? Or have I got that wrong?

Re NATO - absolutely because we can never defend ourselves entirely on our own. However, I think that we definitely need to increase our defence spending on non-nuclear weapons and personal, because governments have hollowed out our military to such an extent that we only at present have the capacity for a fortnights war😮. Our weakness will be exploited by an aggressor like Russia, and the USA cannot be depended on as was previously the case.

Well unless the current Government or the next actually start investing in infrastructure, armed forces along with jobs in local authorities and NHS (all of which keep money flowing and revenue back to the government) in my opinion the U.K. will not advance economically nor will a large proportion of its citizens.

fancythat

^Were Keynes still alive I doubt he would lose much sleep over an obscure forum gran not agreeing with him..
^

It is you that keeps bringing him up to me. Many times on this forum over a period of time.
Best I dont talk about Keynes with you/government can spend what it likes with no financial consequences from anywhere ever/your theories on the forum about him to me/ again please. Thank you.

I bring Keynes up because he is recognised as one of the great economists of all times and because his economic insight actually works' It worked for Roosevelt's New Deal which lifted the US out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. It worked to carry Britain through WW2 and it worked to fund the inception of the Welfare State.

Best I dont talk about Keynes with you/government can spend what it likes with no financial consequences from anywhere ever/

Neither Keynes nor I ever proposed that. I will always challenge anyone who says 'we can't afford it', though because it is economically illiterate and untrue.

If our commitment to NATO is real we and other countries should give priority to defence spending.

Do you still agree with NATO? As much as you did?
And Whitewavemark2 - is your committment to it as strong as it was? I am not sure from your posts that it is? Or have I got that wrong?

^Were Keynes still alive I doubt he would lose much sleep over an obscure forum gran not agreeing with him..
^

It is you that keeps bringing him up to me. Many times on this forum over a period of time.
Best I dont talk about Keynes with you/government can spend what it likes with no financial consequences from anywhere ever/your theories on the forum about him to me/ again please. Thank you.

TBH david to my surprise I think we are largely in agreement over this.

I have been listening to Carlo Rovelli and how Kennedy managed the Cuban crises ( my opinion of the Kennedy’s has risen 100%). I can’t see a single politician in the world super powers with perhaps the exception of China having the intellectual capacity that Khrushchev and the Kennedy’s showed during the Cuban crises.

Defence spending has nothing to do with economic

I dont think I fully understand your sentence.

Are you saying the phrase Military Keynesianism doesnt exist?

I looked it up[not in detail] and it does seem to?[though as I said previously, I had never heard of it before, from what I can remember].

Whitewavemark2

In a war situation the government is in a totally different situation than any other. It is fighting for survival, but the build up to it and subsequent defence needs are well described in Keynesian economics and military aggregate demand.

This imo is what the current government ought to be doing as a matter of urgency, it will take nothing away from the need to sort out social care and other issues, so besetting and inherited by this government -

The military will spend as much as the polititians allow, even today we are in a passive role, we are not actively fighting anywhere. Today Russia is not capable of attacking a NATO with conventional weapons any confrontation will likely start with tit for tat incursions to test NATO resolve while they build up offensive ability.

We must match that whether we are at war or not, it's a similar situation to the lead up to WW2, we didnt spend the money on defence and were caught napping. Today we do see that threat and should spend to counter it even if it means increasing taxation or cutting other spending. If our commitment to NATO is real we and other countries should give priority to defence spending.

fancythat

I looked at him decades ago.
Didnt agree with him then either.

That has to be one of the most amusing thing I've read on this forum (News & Politics) for a long time.

Were Keynes still alive I doubt he would lose much sleep over an obscure forum gran not agreeing with him..

However, when one considers that without Keynes' economic input Britain would probably not have survived WW2 and that the Welfare state set up post WW2 and which we have all benefitted from, would not have been possible (though perhaps you don't agree with the Welfare State either) it's a pretty strange statement...

In fact, had Keynes been listened to after WW1 with his opposition to the punitive economic conditions imposed on Germany there might never have been a WW2.

Oh well....🙄

In a war situation the government is in a totally different situation than any other. It is fighting for survival, but the build up to it and subsequent defence needs are well described in Keynesian economics and military aggregate demand.

This imo is what the current government ought to be doing as a matter of urgency, it will take nothing away from the need to sort out social care and other issues, so besetting and inherited by this government -

fancythat

I dont think I ever came across Military Keynesianism.
That part may work.

Defence spending has nothing to do with economics you spend as much as needed to counter any threat you see. Threats change 5 yrs ago it was not foreseen that the Ukraine war would begin, The Tories ran down our defence spending because they saw no threat the rest of Europe did the same including Russia .

Cold War stockpiles have been used up now they must be rebuilt to face new threats, if we are to do this without the US backup it's going to be very expensive.

greyfur16

In what scenario do you anticipate wet wipes and lentils being of use?

Wetwipes would be extremely useful if water supplies were disrupted.

Before i am accused of being ridiculous, I would like to say that our local water supply has been so unreliable over last few years that I have already resorted to keeping a supply in for personal hygiene purposes for days when we get up to find that our taps are dry!

Lentils are less useful in these circumstances, though tinned, pre-cooked ones could certainly be useful if our power supply became as unreliable as the water.

Flood is one of the major risks, and quite possible with the predicted El Niño effect, if dirty flood water or sewage enters the water supply. It’s not just war related. Lentils wouldn’t be much use though, unless you have water.

In what scenario do you anticipate wet wipes and lentils being of use?

I dont think I ever came across Military Keynesianism.
That part may work.

fancythat

I looked at him decades ago.
Didnt agree with him then either.

So what bit of Military Keynesianism cant you agree with? It worked before.

Casdon

It would be good to have an understanding of what 5% being spent on defence would mean in terms of tax rises, and cuts in other departmental budgets. I think the tax paying electorate need to know that so they can form an informed view.

Quite.

1% UK GDP is about £30 Billion.

Whitewavemark2

fancythat

I would like the defence budget raised to 5% in order to feel greater security.

And spend less money on what?

[I dont subscribe to the theory that the Uk can spend whatever money it likes, and there being no financial problems].

Both. Remain firm supporters of NATO, but in particular whilst the USA simply can’t be trusted, we can’t entirely rely on NATO, so I think we must be able to have a degree of independence - which I believe is what France has always done.

France is nominally independant but does cooperate with NATO, their defence spending is just over 2% of GDP. The dilemma now is what technology is going to be .needed in the future, now that Cold War stockpiles are becoming depleted rebuilding arsenals of modern weapons offensive and defensive is priority.

Defence could well turn out to be Andy Burnham's acheilles heel.

It would be good to have an understanding of what 5% being spent on defence would mean in terms of tax rises, and cuts in other departmental budgets. I think the tax paying electorate need to know that so they can form an informed view.

Of course, given the parlous state of the world, our defense budget should be raised. I believe Poland pays 5% but geographically and historically they're more vulnerable to Russian aggression. However, AB won't even commit to 3% and I think we're vulnerable too in a different way given how Russian submarines appear to be circling their way around British waters. I don't suppose they're checking out the cod

Rosie51

^I would like the defence budget raised to 5% in order to feel greater security.^

With you on that 100%, with immediate effect.

Yes!

I looked at him decades ago.
Didnt agree with him then either.

fancythat

^I would like the defence budget raised to 5% in order to feel greater security.^

And spend less money on what?

[I dont subscribe to the theory that the Uk can spend whatever money it likes, and there being no financial problems].

If you look at Keynes you may well change your mind.

fancythat

^I would like the defence budget raised to 5% in order to feel greater security.^

And spend less money on what?

[I dont subscribe to the theory that the Uk can spend whatever money it likes, and there being no financial problems].

Both. Remain firm supporters of NATO, but in particular whilst the USA simply can’t be trusted, we can’t entirely rely on NATO, so I think we must be able to have a degree of independence - which I believe is what France has always done.