By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Market watch: Dow Jones drops approx. 300 points, 4% today. Drops below 7000 points.

18 months ago Dow Jones peaked at over 14000 points and since then it has been in free fall so too the US economy.

Dow Jones and USA economy are in turmoil. Oh shit so too is the rest of the world economies. Worldwide recession will soon turn to Depression.
Dow Jones could drop below 5000 points by end of the year and keep dropping and dropping. DJ at 2000 points could be even reached by end of next year.



Around the Network
That Guy said:

Akuma is right about you guys.

3 million is WAY too much to save a wetland field mouse.

But 5 trillion over the past what 5 years is what we need in order to stay like ~5 generations ahead of the enemy in stealth fighter technology!

We could stand to cut just 20% of that; and we save what, 1 TRILLION dollars over the next 5 years? That covers the entire stimulus package right there!

 

 

I mean seriously, the military spending pie chart looks a LOT like nintendo's marketshare in the videogame market (and Europe looks like PS3, lol); but I digress.

 

The united states almost spends more than everyone else in the world COMBINED. They spend 6 times more than the 2nd highest military, China. I'm not saying do anything drastic here, but I think the nation will survive if they only outspent their next highest superpower only by a factor of 4 or 5 instead of 6.

Why do we justify these HUGE defense budgets while at the same time domestic stuff like intrastructure (i.e. the Bridge in Minnesota, or the Levies in New Orleans) or Healthcare constantly get ignored until a disaster happens?

We didn't spend 5 trillion on stealth technology.  Your being ridiculious.

Nor are we 5 generations ahead of everyody in weapons technology.  Great Britian for example is very close... and staying way ahead of your enemy in technology is a good things.  It means you hardly lose any solders in war.

I mean think of iraq where like... under 5,000 deaths is seen as huge losses.

Not to mention the many other benefits it creates.  For example Silicoln valley and the results it created was GREATLY helped by military spending.

Lots of technology out there only the military can buy... and if that technology can be used to kill enemy troops or save their own.  You can bet the government is going to buy it... and in good numbers.

Unlike virtually any other kind of technology.

It's a lot like the space program.  If you look at it as billions to get to the moon.  Yeah sure not impressive.  But when you count all the other stuff...

Clinton saw this.  This is one of the reasons why he was the one who started to give the Military consistant drastic icnreases to non operational spending under his presidency.



Military spending is a huge problem: these guys can wrap their blunders in tight layers of "national security secrecy" and red tape.

And if you attempt to cut there, the opposition will just use it as an electoral weapon. It's disgusting.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

Bitmap Frogs said:
Military spending is a huge problem: these guys can wrap their blunders in tight layers of "national security secrecy" and red tape.

And if you attempt to cut there, the opposition will just use it as an electoral weapon. It's disgusting.

 

And technological advancements, job creation, exporting... as weapons are a fairly big US export... and the more advanced we get, the more we can sell off other weapons.

We've got something like dang near half of the arms market cornered... and this is despite the fact that we don't sell our newest stuff.

Also this is just the legal recorded numbers.



Weird that all you Socialists don't like Military spending. I mean it's the same as welfare, except people earn it instead of just giving it away.

Almost all Military spending is spent in the US, and they do a good job of spreading it around by state.

The top 1% of the country pays 50% of the taxes, and most people in the military are blue collar. So, it's economic redistribution, but you have to work for it.

I guess you guys are against the "work for it" part.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
Military spending is a huge problem: these guys can wrap their blunders in tight layers of "national security secrecy" and red tape.

And if you attempt to cut there, the opposition will just use it as an electoral weapon. It's disgusting.

 

And technological advancements, job creation, exporting... as weapons are a fairly big US export... and the more advanced we get, the more we can sell off other weapons.

We've got something like dang near half of the arms market cornered... and this is despite the fact that we don't sell our newest stuff.

Also this is just the legal recorded numbers.

 

Technological advancements are not-that-useful when no one else can use them because of national security. Exports are very interesting indeed but why do private business with a healthy export activity need the government to finance their R+D budget?

Just 5 billion dollars (less than 1% of the current military spending) is all that's required to build the ITER which means the development of commercial nuclear fusion. Abundant, cheap, "green" energy for everyone. In the meanwhile, they've spent several billions already just discussing about Yucca Mountain.

Nevermind the blunders we can't even talk about because of the secrecy layer. As they say, government secrecy exists not to protect secrets but rather to protect those who take poor decisions.

@therealmafoo: can't you discuss politics without going personal against someone disagreeing with you? I also find interesting just because I disagree with you, you just go and label me a "socialist" which is a word that has obvious negative connotations to you. In fact, you don't even know my political orientation - just because I disagree on military spending you assume I'm a socialist? Your political knowledge doesn't go far beyond the squabbles between democrats and republicans...





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

TheRealMafoo said:
Weird that all you Socialists don't like Military spending. I mean it's the same as welfare, except people earn it instead of just giving it away.

Almost all Military spending is spent in the US, and they do a good job of spreading it around by state.

The top 1% of the country pays 50% of the taxes, and most people in the military are blue collar. So, it's economic redistribution, but you have to work for it.

I guess you guys are against the "work for it" part.

 I'm not at all against military spending nor am I a socialist. My point was that I don't see why people complain about other programs that go to University Research, Art Galleries and Infrastructure. If I was arguing that we should be spending more on Welfare then I guess the "work for it" part would be valid.

 



I didn't say 5 trillion in stealth technology. And if I did, I really meant 5 trillion in aggregate Military Spending.

Its still a big moneyhole if you ask me. When your navy is larger than the next 13 countries COMBINED, and 11 of those countries are ALLIES, then you have to ask yourself if enough is enough.

I don't buy your "we can sell off our old weapons" argument either. Lets just proliferate MORE guns into the world! And I don't see that as economical either. Its much akin to trading in 3 used games for 1 new game at Gamestop.

Look, I don't want to see anyone needlessly dying either, but I think there are other ways of staying safe rather than throwing more and more money into a situation.

@jv, don't mind what Mafoo says. "Socialist" is just Mafoo's way of calling us a "fanboy" or a "marioboy." That's just the first thing he goes to when someone doesn't agree with him.



SciFiBoy said:
halogamer1989 said:
SciFiBoy said:
halogamer1989 said:
I know. We are getting the financial response to bailing out AIG once more. It is a futile cause. Let it file Chapter 11 and have another successful corp take its place. We are indeed reaping what sewed in Congress with a 1100 page bill that hardly anyone got to look at before passage.

 

the system i was refering to was Capitalism

The world is capitalistic.  The only way we would switch is by a neo-USSR invading and taking us over.

 

really, youd only accept a different system if it was forced upon you?

Yes. You are talking to the biggest GOP supporters on the site dude.

 



Bitmap Frogs said:
Kasz216 said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
Military spending is a huge problem: these guys can wrap their blunders in tight layers of "national security secrecy" and red tape.

And if you attempt to cut there, the opposition will just use it as an electoral weapon. It's disgusting.

 

And technological advancements, job creation, exporting... as weapons are a fairly big US export... and the more advanced we get, the more we can sell off other weapons.

We've got something like dang near half of the arms market cornered... and this is despite the fact that we don't sell our newest stuff.

Also this is just the legal recorded numbers.

 

Technological advancements are not-that-useful when no one else can use them because of national security. Exports are very interesting indeed but why do private business with a healthy export activity need the government to finance their R+D budget?

Just 5 billion dollars (less than 1% of the current military spending) is all that's required to build the ITER which means the development of commercial nuclear fusion. Abundant, cheap, "green" energy for everyone. In the meanwhile, they've spent several billions already just discussing about Yucca Mountain.

Nevermind the blunders we can't even talk about because of the secrecy layer. As they say, government secrecy exists not to protect secrets but rather to protect those who take poor decisions.

@therealmafoo: can't you discuss politics without going personal against someone disagreeing with you? I also find interesting just because I disagree with you, you just go and label me a "socialist" which is a word that has obvious negative connotations to you. In fact, you don't even know my political orientation - just because I disagree on military spending you assume I'm a socialist? Your political knowledge doesn't go far beyond the squabbles between democrats and republicans...

Without the US military spending the computer you use right now would not be anwyhere near as advanced.