Is This Fair and Equitable?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Okay, to some extent, I get your points.

That said, In regards to the issue of Germany wanting (hypothetically) to build a long range nuclear missile program, what would the US reaction be?

This question is interesting on two fronts. First, you immediately focused on the US response as to the more direct concern of what would be the EU or Russian response? Secondly, is Germany a sovereign nation or not? If you are, nobody can stop you from building nuclear missiles or not!

Using the US influence or response to formulate your domestic or foreign policy is simply allowing yourself to appear to be the victim, and then benefiting from it. Point in case, you allude to the fact that the US forced Germany to send troops to Afghanistan. Do you mean to tell me that Germany could not simply have refused? Other countries did.

You say the US benefits from NATO proportionally, can you explain that?

Edited April 21, 2020 by Douglas Buckland
Hhh

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 4/19/2020 at 10:16 AM, Ernst Reim said:

According to worldometer, the US GDP is 24% of the World GDP, Germany has 4.6% and France 3.2%. Thus if you consider it an income-adjusted tax system, yeah, Germany is contributing more to NATO than the US. And France and England slightly more than their share.

But definitely, get rid of all these international organizations which achieved that much of the world is shaped in America's image. Get rid of all international standards and regulations, which do not at all benefit the US. Whatever organization will follow will not dare to make decision which would not benefit the US. Let's close the borders and regulate trade. I am sure that Europe will nevertheless continue to let Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, UPS, FedEx, etc. operate in Europe.

You can spin it any way you like, but the fact is that the American taxpayer is paying a disproportional amount for these NGO’s, and getting very little in return.

It is time for this to stop and for others to pay a FAIR share, or for the US to simply get out of these welfare schemes.

If you feel that the US is benefiting from these organizations, in line with how much they are funding them, please let me know which organizations match that criteria and the percentage of funding from the US taxpayer.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 4/18/2020 at 12:16 PM, LiamP said:

Or to spin it another way, per capita, or as proportion of GDP, America is paying less! Why should every German, Frenchman, Brit, etc pay far more than any American for these institutions? Time for this era of Europe subsidising the US to come to an end, ra ra, or something.

And on and on it goes.

I feel like I'm fitting in better and better.

I was amazed to see the UK is the 2nd biggest contributor to the WHO. 

Germany & Japan have much bigger economies but pay less.

Italy and France similar size economies but pay less 

Of course off the record Chy-na pays a lot more than it would appear and pays that money in a 'targeted' way and more 'efficiently'

 

[Walter Faber + 48]

@OP: 
US % of UN/WHO budget is slightly less than its share of world's GDP, so the US does NOT pay a disproportionate amount. 
All these international organisations help international cooperation, standardisation, give a platform for meetings and help finding compromises. 
The USA has many international companies, has the highest trade volume of all countries and many investments around the world. The world has an informal agreement to use the dollar even for transactions outside the US, which gives much benefit to the you.

By all means, feel free to leave international organisations, and continue antagonising allies. Just don't complain when when technical standards will be agreed on without consideration of US interests, agency headquarters will move out of the US, countries will stop using the Dollar and replace it by Euro/Yen/Yuan and start to form trade and tariff blocks that exclude the US. I also wish you much luck with international law enforcement without international organisations.  

Apart from these "egoistic" considerations above, contribution to international organisations is also an act of solidarity of stronger and richer countries towards weaker and developing countries, which gives it justification even if (which is not the case) the giving nations would not benefit of these organisations themselves. 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Walter Faber

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

So you believe that basing all COUNTRIES contribution should be based on GDP...

Now we have an issue, should we treat each European country as a sovereign entity, or treat Europe as the bloc it says it wants to be?

You cannot have it both ways. This is similar to China claiming ‘undeveloped nation’ when it benefits them, and crows about their technological advancements when it suits them.

There is simply no rational reason for the US to continue to fund any organization that stymies each and every American endeavor, at every turn.

Your arguments do not address America paying the lion’s share of NATO.

 

[Walter Faber + 48]

"Now we have an issue, should we treat each European country as a sovereign entity, or treat Europe as the bloc it says it wants to be?"
Not really an issue, Europe is a Union of states, not a single state. If you absolutely want to you can add up the contributions of all EU countries and compare them to the EU GDP and you will find the EU is paying its share.
 

"There is simply no rational reason for the US to continue to fund any organization that stymies each and every American endeavor, at every turn."
I have listed rational reasons above, repeated in short form, the organisations help stability and cooperation which benefits all countries, including the US. Furthermore, US financial contributions buy the US a say in these organisations. 

"Your arguments do not address America paying the lion’s share of NATO."
The US military spending is in no relation to the threats. You are completely overspending. Cut your spending to 2% of GDP (roughly the European average) and I won't feel less save in Germany at all (and wouldn't if I were situated in America or anywhere else in Europe).
 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 4/18/2020 at 11:40 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

I am guessing, and hoping, that when Trump wins his second term, that he either stops funding these useless international organizations, and the ones which we choose to fund, the funding is at  more representative level.

How is it even reasonable that the US (that is, the US taxpayer) is billed for a good fifth of the budget of INTERNATIONAL organizations? Would the British or Polish taxpayers put up with this bullshit? And you wonder why the US wants to disconnect from this ‘globalism’!

Actually Douglas looking at the percentages you stated, Germany the UK and France by percentage of GDP are paying more into the UN than the US are doing. Or am I missing something here?

I agree its an abused and now defunct institution though.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

43 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Now we have an issue, should we treat each European country as a sovereign entity, or treat Europe as the bloc it says it wants to be?

Surely the sum of the sovereign nations would add up to the European bloc number anyway??

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

26 minutes ago, Walter Faber said:

The US military spending is in no relation to the threats. You are completely overspending. Cut your spending to 2% of GDP (roughly the European average) and I won't feel less save in Germany at all (and wouldn't if I were situated in America or anywhere else in Europe).

No this is incorrect. You dont know how you would feel as the spending is way more than 2%

Without that military spending you have no idea how safe or not you would feel, its hypothetical.

What should happen is Germany should pay their way (which they dont)

Any country that falls below 2% should be fined accordingly by the other members of NATO end of story!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

23 minutes ago, Walter Faber said:

"Now we have an issue, should we treat each European country as a sovereign entity, or treat Europe as the bloc it says it wants to be?"
Not really an issue, Europe is a Union of states, not a single state. If you absolutely want to you can add up the contributions of all EU countries and compare them to the EU GDP and you will find the EU is paying its share.
 

"There is simply no rational reason for the US to continue to fund any organization that stymies each and every American endeavor, at every turn."
I have listed rational reasons above, repeated in short form, the organisations help stability and cooperation which benefits all countries, including the US. Furthermore, US financial contributions buy the US a say in these organisations. 

"Your arguments do not address America paying the lion’s share of NATO."
The US military spending is in no relation to the threats. You are completely overspending. Cut your spending to 2% of GDP (roughly the European average) and I won't feel less save in Germany at all (and wouldn't if I were situated in America or anywhere else in Europe).
 

Why don’t we assess costs based on population as both the EU and the US are ‘a Union of States’, and this would accurately reflect the numbers of people who benefit, or not, from the expenditure of taxpayer monies.

From the ‘top of my head’, I think that the population of the European Union is roughly 446 million, while the population of the US is roughly 331 million. By this metric the EU should be paying 1.347 times the amount assessed to the US.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

No this is incorrect. You dont know how you would feel as the spending is way more than 2%

Without that military spending you have no idea how safe or not you would feel, its hypothetical.

What should happen is Germany should pay their way (which they dont)

Any country that falls below 2% should be fined accordingly by the other members of NATO end of story!

Furthermore, the US military spending has a ‘knock on’ effect on the German economy.

Just ask the Philippines what happened when they closed Clark Air Base and the Subic Bay Maval Base. I am not questioning their right to do so, but the effect on the local economy was disasterous. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

14 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Actually Douglas looking at the percentages you stated, Germany the UK and France by percentage of GDP are paying more into the UN than the US are doing. Or am I missing something here?

I agree its an abused and now defunct institution though.

If GDP is the metric used.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

@Rob Plant
 

See below:

“These assessed contributions are determined through a complex formula that ultimately requires the United States to pay 22 percent of the general budget and 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget. These are the largest shares ofany nation.”

This is NOT per GDP and is nowhere defined. The NATO assessment is per GDP.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

The fact is, the IS does not benefit from NATO.

The Bosnian war should have been dealt with by the European components of NATO, but the US was forced to commit an inordinate amount of air support.

In Libya, two European members offered to take over certain bombing missions from the US assets....then promptly ran out of bombs in two weeks! What were their contributions spent on?!

[LiamP + 168]

12 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Why don’t we assess costs based on population as both the EU and the US are ‘a Union of States’, and this would accurately reflect the numbers of people who benefit, or not, from the expenditure of taxpayer monies.

From the ‘top of my head’, I think that the population of the European Union is roughly 446 million, while the population of the US is roughly 331 million. By this metric the EU should be paying 1.347 times the amount assessed to the US.

We already covered this. If you want to do it based on population, i.e. per capita, USA is paying way less. Using your numbers from above, USA pays 22%, Germany, France and UK together pay 35% - already way more than your 1.347 x USA and that's only three EU nations!

[Walter Faber + 48]

29 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Why don’t we assess costs based on population as both the EU and the US are ‘a Union of States’, and this would accurately reflect the numbers of people who benefit, or not, from the expenditure of taxpayer monies.

It is a common principle that those who have more give more. The same way your Goldman Sachs CEO pays more income tax (in absolute terms) than an oil rig trainee. 
The absurdity of the "payment according to head count" becomes obvious when you use this principle to Nigeria and Bangladesh.

 

32 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Without that military spending you have no idea how safe or not you would feel, its hypothetical.

I stand to my point that US military spending is exaggerated. It is an extensive topic and I won't debate it in greater detail here however.
It is true that Germany should keep the agreement of 2%GDP spending as the promise was made, but I deem the 2% number too high as a goal.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Walter Faber

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The fact is, the IS does not benefit from NATO.

The Bosnian war should have been dealt with by the European components of NATO, but the US was forced to commit an inordinate amount of air support.

In Libya, two European members offered to take over certain bombing missions from the US assets....then promptly ran out of bombs in two weeks! What were their contributions spent on?!

One of my friends flew Tornado jets in the Bosnian war, sadly he is no longer with us.

[Marcin2 + 725]

Military spending is a function of a few factors: geographic situation, the role the certain country wants to play, how others behave: it means how much they spend and at what tech level they comparatively are, other factors-mainly defence industry as a business impact on economy.

( I do not know whether this is totally tru, I just made this up)

Give you US example of application of this:

- safe geographic location so No need to spend a lot,

- role as a country that unilaterally wants to rule how each country behaves- along to US interests, other terms: global policeman, pax americana,

- After collapse of Soviet System in Eurasia and sudden decrease of  non-US spending US could spend less. Resurgence of Russia under Putin, and China since 1990s created new situation that required higher spending to stay ahead, recently Chinese spending in PPP is half of US spending. Improving Chinese technology - achieving near peer status : 30 years behind in military technology is enough to have near peer status,

- Defence industry is a big  business in US with vast political impact through lobbying

- Defence industry increased general tech level of US due to dual use opportunities.

In total it means 4-5% of GDP depending how you count it.

Make the same analysis for any country.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

26 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

30 years behind in military technology is enough to have near peer status,

No it frankly is a lifetime behind.

30 year old technology in anything to do with the military would be a sitting duck and a liabilty these days to any armed force, I really don't get your logic at all Marcin. You know this surely as you are a pretty smart guy normally (albeit with a China hegemony fetish).

Please tell me you meant 3 years, and even then its outdated.

[Marcin2 + 725]

5 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

No it frankly is a lifetime behind.

30 year old technology in anything to do with the military would be a sitting duck and a liabilty these days to any armed force, I really don't get your logic at all Marcin. You know this surely as you are a pretty smart guy normally (albeit with a China hegemony fetish).

Please tell me you meant 3 years, and even then its outdated.

Rob. Lets put it this way: Which present military technology, I mean level of development of any technology was not known or already developed in 1990 ? (Maybe not mass produced, but developed, I mean prototypes). Name one.

China is not peer competitor cause they are many more years behind (I once gave a list with technology gap in years, I think the best were aircraft carriers: China is 70 years behind United States, about level of US in early 1950s). Well, US launched people to the Moon , 51 years ago. China cannot, they would do it for propaganda reasons.

But you are right about this fetish thing, I am starting to think that I need to do something about it, maybe 2 week rehab, no writing or reading about anything Chinese related.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Ernst Reim + 33]

20 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Using the US influence or response to formulate your domestic or foreign policy is simply allowing yourself to appear to be the victim, and then benefiting from it.

Point in case, you allude to the fact that the US forced Germany to send troops to Afghanistan. Do you mean to tell me that Germany could not simply have refused? Other countries did.

You say the US benefits from NATO proportionally, can you explain that?

Sorry, Douglas: this is a bit late. Feel free not to reply further to this, but I did not want to seem to ignore your comments.

- Yes, a "we would like to defend ourselves, but the US won't let us" would be hypocritical. I just wanted to point out that a "we want Europe to be able to defend itself without us" is likewise hypocritical. Currently we are working on with "we want Europe to put in as much as possible without endangering that we are calling the shot" on the US and "we want to put in as low as possible to keep the US protecting us" on the European side. Could be better I admit.

- I did not want to make a point with Afghanistan. I said we normally do not have military interests outside Germany and had to mention Afghanistan since it is the current exception.

- I did not want to say that the US benefits from NATO (over)proportionally. (And do not think I did.) Only that looking at defense spending and declaring that the US "pays more for the protection of Europe" is oversimplified. There is practically no use of Germany which is not a NATO or UN mission, while the US follows also national goals in the use of their military. That is of course completely legitimate, but it puts the numbers into context. There is **no** action of the Germany military which is not undertaken in consultation with the US. Do you really want to say that the US consults on all their military operations?

I see your points. They are points worth making and needing discussion, even if I **might** not agree with them. (Actually the German defense spending needed to be increased, IMO.) But the issue is definitely not as black-and-white as "the US is paying Europe's security".

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

Americans consume most of the world's resources, destroy most of it's ecospere, so I think they are still couple of billions short. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Americans consume most of the world's resources, destroy most of it's ecospere, so I think they are still couple of billions short. 

Those darn Americans.  Can't live with them, can't shoot them.

[Marcin2 + 725]

22 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Rob. Lets put it this way: Which present military technology, I mean level of development of any technology was not known or already developed in 1990 ? (Maybe not mass produced, but developed, I mean prototypes). Name one.

China is not peer competitor cause they are many more years behind

My question was genuine.

F 22 Raptor had prototype flown in 1990. F 35 is a downgrade of F 22 so does not count.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo