Nobody Is Stealing Your Jobs, You Spend Too Much On Wars: Alibaba Founder Tells US – Counter Current News

Go to bed, you're hallucinating

Jack Wa Alibaba you might want to research some of the allegation against this guy.

As to his comments he poses a fair question. The debate concerning the use of resources for butter and guns is as old as there have been wars.

the answer to the question is depends

Personal Best Regards:

The concept on it's own is absurd. Military spending creates jobs.

World War II is what got us out of the depression. When weapons, parts, uniforms, food and equipment were needed millions of workers were suddenly employed to manufacture them. Civilian support employees were needed in communications and several other areas.

I'm not saying that war is a good thing, but it does have a positive effect on an economy.

Originally Posted by Guest

The concept on it's own is absurd. Military spending creates jobs.

World War II is what got us out of the depression. When weapons, parts, uniforms, food and equipment were needed millions of workers were suddenly employed to manufacture them. Civilian support employees were needed in communications and several other areas.

I'm not saying that war is a good thing, but it does have a positive effect on an economy.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed greatly the nature of war at least between super powers. There are still guerrilla fighters who will change their tactics where warranted which we certainly have learned in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Vietnam. As well as with 9/11, the Boston Marathon, Oklahoma City and in Manchester as well as Paris, Berlin, Nice and other places.

Originally Posted by Guest

The concept on it's own is absurd. Military spending creates jobs.

World War II is what got us out of the depression. When weapons, parts, uniforms, food and equipment were needed millions of workers were suddenly employed to manufacture them. Civilian support employees were needed in communications and several other areas.

I'm not saying that war is a good thing, but it does have a positive effect on an economy.

ALL paid for with debt. The country went into substantial debt to make all that stuff. Luckily...we had the Europeans "paying us back" for "loans" we made to them.

The entire "world financial system" is a big fraud, a big ponzi. These "banks" who "loan" $ trillions, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank...there's NO collateral behind their loans. They "make money" out of thin air. They type into a computer $10 billion and poof...there it is to be "loaned" for interest...and causing inflation...causing the other dollars to depreciate.

It's quite the system, quite the con... A "bank" gives you a piece of paper that you give to someone else to "buy" something...they then take that same piece of paper back and give it to the bank...for "credit"...so later the bank can give THEM that same piece of paper so they can "buy" something from someone else who will simply bring the piece of paper back to the bank again for credit. The cycle repeats over and over.

There is no "money", there is credit. We don't use gold or silver to give our "money" value. We have credit. A dollar is $1 "worth" of credit. When you pay cash, you are exchanging pieces of "credit"...for an actual product.

Originally Posted by Guest

The concept on it's own is absurd. Military spending creates jobs.

World War II is what got us out of the depression. When weapons, parts, uniforms, food and equipment were needed millions of workers were suddenly employed to manufacture them. Civilian support employees were needed in communications and several other areas.

I'm not saying that war is a good thing, but it does have a positive effect on an economy.

You are confusing deficiet spending and making weapons. It is the deficiet spending that stimulates the economy, until it collapses of course. Increasing welfare does exact same thing. You are correct that war is not a good thing.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are confusing deficiet spending and making weapons. It is the deficiet spending that stimulates the economy, until it collapses of course. Increasing welfare does exact same thing. You are correct that war is not a good thing.

After August 6 and 9, 1945 huge military expenditures like the millions of men and women involved in WWII is not needed. And you cannot just throw money at guerrilla soldiers. We lost the Vietnam war because we could not think like our enemy. To be able to beat ISIS will take media, psychological warfare, spies, religious leaders countering the message of ISIS, etc.

Originally Posted by Guest

ALL paid for with debt. The country went into substantial debt to make all that stuff. Luckily...we had the Europeans "paying us back" for "loans" we made to them.

The entire "world financial system" is a big fraud, a big ponzi. These "banks" who "loan" $ trillions, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank...there's NO collateral behind their loans. They "make money" out of thin air. They type into a computer $10 billion and poof...there it is to be "loaned" for interest...and causing inflation...causing the other dollars to depreciate.

It's quite the system, quite the con... A "bank" gives you a piece of paper that you give to someone else to "buy" something...they then take that same piece of paper back and give it to the bank...for "credit"...so later the bank can give THEM that same piece of paper so they can "buy" something from someone else who will simply bring the piece of paper back to the bank again for credit. The cycle repeats over and over.

There is no "money", there is credit. We don't use gold or silver to give our "money" value. We have credit. A dollar is $1 "worth" of credit. When you pay cash, you are exchanging pieces of "credit"...for an actual product.

Not only have we not been paid in full for WWII debts to us
but we are still owed money owed for WWI.

As to our called fiat currency. As strange as it seems to both you and I, so long as others are willing to exchange goods and services for that printed bit of paper, it does have value. Heck, if you see gold as REAL value it too only has value so long as people are willing to give you goods and services for it. You cannot for example eat gold.

We talk about the TWENTY TRILLION DOLLAR national debt like we have any idea what TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS IS.

You mention the Europeans paying us back. I'm not aware of that. The other day Trump publicly stated that only 4 countries are paying what the agreed to for NATO. There was the US, Great Brittan and two far smaller countries. We are THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER IS, THE AMERICAN NATIONAL DEBT IS paying their bill.

From what I've read, in the real world we could pay off the national debt in 45 years. The chance of us doing that, the chance of us sticking to a non-existent 45 year plan-IS ZERO.

I've read when we talk about dollars, roughly 20% is either coinage or printed bills; the rest is dots and dashes on computers.

As, I've posted before, most people believe China is our biggest creditor so they hold most of the national debt.
I was shocked to discover Japan actually holds more of our national debt than does China. More important-together Japan and China TOGETHER, hold about 20% of our national debt. SOCIAL SECURITY HOLDS 42% OF THE NATIONAL DEBT. THERE IS NO FIXED INTEREST RATE OR PAYMENT DATE ON THIS LOAN FROM AN ALREADY GOVERNMENT OVER EXTENDED PLAN.

It is a house of cards. In history, it has always collapsed.
THIS TOO WILL-MUST COLLAPSE. When? What to do?
BEATS ME.

Originally Posted by Guest

After August 6 and 9, 1945 huge military expenditures like the millions of men and women involved in WWII is not needed. And you cannot just throw money at guerrilla soldiers. We lost the Vietnam war because we could not think like our enemy. To be able to beat ISIS will take media, psychological warfare, spies, religious leaders countering the message of ISIS, etc.

We "lost" in Vietnam because politicians made rules that doomed ever winning. The enemy couldn't be followed into other countries or villages to be slaughtered. Our soldiers had their hands tied behind their backs. Just like they have ever since.

Soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan...they're targets. No wonder so many come back all f@cked up in the head compared to WWII. In WWII they got to FIGHT. They got to invade and kill everything they encountered. Not so for Vietnam and on...in those "wars", they had to act like polite English bobbies...not killing death machines. Being a target messes up your head.

You DON'T EVER "win the hearts and minds", a conquered people ALL need to go or you have an enemy for life.

Originally Posted by Guest

After August 6 and 9, 1945 huge military expenditures like the millions of men and women involved in WWII is not needed. And you cannot just throw money at guerrilla soldiers. We lost the Vietnam war because we could not think like our enemy. To be able to beat ISIS will take media, psychological warfare, spies, religious leaders countering the message of ISIS, etc.

I don't totally concur with that line. We lost the war because it was NEVER a war according to D.C. AND because we were not allowed to fight the war the way we wished. WE were totally controlled by civilians that did not know how to fight a war. The bombing of Hanoi that was called off by Johnson, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) was also instrumental. Once the enemy was able to start rebuilding up North, they were able to dedicate more soldiers down South. We could have fought them, IF we did not have "no fire" zones. If we could have bombed where we wished. IF the military could have been let loose of their leashes. Like you said, we were not allowed to "think like the enemy" because we were held back, not because we did not know how. ANyone that has been trained in jungle/guerrilla warfare, knows that we had the knowledge. We just did not have permission. Cut your military loose to fight a war on their terms and you will see a short war. You may not "like" how it is fought, but it will be won. Americans are winners and there is NO ONE as good as us. Of course, like a golf cart, you can't see the full potential until you take the governor off.

Originally Posted by Guest

Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed greatly the nature of war at least between super powers. There are still guerrilla fighters who will change their tactics where warranted which we certainly have learned in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Vietnam. As well as with 9/11, the Boston Marathon, Oklahoma City and in Manchester as well as Paris, Berlin, Nice and other places.

There are books on everything you have mentioned. I'm not sure what your point is
1. Re: Atomic bomb
Not sure if you are berating the US. But not taught in our liberal controlled schools, both Germany and Japan were also attempting to build an atomic bomb. Germany of course is guilty of the holocaust. Some deny. Perhaps, more do not want to face the facts. The Germans killed off HALF of the Jews in Europe. My father was a forward observer in the Philippines. He is now gone. He never really spoke about it. I do know that he was one of only 18 in his battalion to survive WWII. A battalion is 3-600 men.
Had WE not dropped the atomic bomb, I probably would not have been born. My father was supposed to be among the first troops invading Japan. Chance of survival was zero. Estimate of casualties had we needed to invade Japan was ONE MILLION TROOPS.
In WWII we insisted on total surrender. Korea, Vietnam, the middle east, we do not seem willing to do what it takes to win. We expect our troops, trained to kill to be diplomats-THIS IS INSANITY.
RE: the terrorist attacks you mention.
It is as I said, we refuse to do what it takes to WIN.
These people, while I cannot understand it truly believe they will get lasting rewards if they die spreading their faith. We insist upon? Were we to kill off the entire family of these terroists. At the next family gathering the father the uncle, the cousins, would perhaps, talk them out of it.
Resort to their tactics. If, you question that is fine.
They had no trouble finding people to cut heads off on television. They are among us. There are of course many non terrorist muslims. DO TELL THIS FOOL HOW YOU CAN TELL ONE FROM THE OTHER. Oh by the way-I know four people who died at the world trade center. One was a father of two kids. Many years before that I had taught him how to ride a bike. Oh and muslims cheering about 9/11. Trump saw them in New Jersey. A few days after 9/11 I SAW THEM STILL CHEERING IN BROOKLYN. YES, HAD THEY STEPPED IN FRONT OF MY CAR, I HAD DECIDED TO RUN OVER THEM.

Originally Posted by Guest

After August 6 and 9, 1945 huge military expenditures like the millions of men and women involved in WWII is not needed. And you cannot just throw money at guerrilla soldiers. We lost the Vietnam war because we could not think like our enemy. To be able to beat ISIS will take media, psychological warfare, spies, religious leaders countering the message of ISIS, etc.

MY VIEW
The IRA was fighting England for well over 100 years.
One day people rose to power actually they were in power leading the carnage. Any way, people asked WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR. Peace came and it was good for all.

Will the same thing happen in the middle east? I HOPE SO.
Will it take 100 years? I HOPE NOT. I think-I HOPE-Trumps view that you need to do it yourselves-we will gladly moderate. Any peace we ram down their throats cannot last. The middle east has been at war for generations. They will need to not only want peace but to know haw to live without war.

Originally Posted by Guest

We "lost" in Vietnam because politicians made rules that doomed ever winning. The enemy couldn't be followed into other countries or villages to be slaughtered. Our soldiers had their hands tied behind their backs. Just like they have ever since.

Soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan...they're targets. No wonder so many come back all f@cked up in the head compared to WWII. In WWII they got to FIGHT. They got to invade and kill everything they encountered. Not so for Vietnam and on...in those "wars", they had to act like polite English bobbies...not killing death machines. Being a target messes up your head.

You DON'T EVER "win the hearts and minds", a conquered people ALL need to go or you have an enemy for life.

My dad was a forward observer in the Philippines-essentially a spy. Though he refused to talk about it I know he was one of 18 guys in his battalion (300-600 men) to survive the war.. His legs had been badly burned. He died long after WWII and still had a piece of Japanese sratenel too close to his spine to be removed. More than once, I recall his nightmares. More than once I saw my father turn into the animal he was in the war. I don't know but I don't think they offered aid to WWII vets as they now do.

SOLUTION-I DO NOT HAVE ONE.

If you think about it, in the American Revolution the colonists who fought that war were not much different then the fighters in the middle east. The english wanted a gentleman's war. You would line up your men in two or three lines. They were single shot smooth bore guns, The first line would shoot and move back to reload while the next line would move up to fire. The bullets were large but there was no accuracy. More like if you keep shooting you will hit something. The english were far superior in that tactic. Our people, some of whom had rifled guns had far greater accuracy but it took far longer to load. Our people would aim for officers. THAT WAS TOTALLY UNGENTLEMANLY, TERRORISTS?

Originally Posted by Guest

My dad was a forward observer in the Philippines-essentially a spy. Though he refused to talk about it I know he was one of 18 guys in his battalion (300-600 men) to survive the war.. His legs had been badly burned. He died long after WWII and still had a piece of Japanese sratenel too close to his spine to be removed. More than once, I recall his nightmares. More than once I saw my father turn into the animal he was in the war. I don't know but I don't think they offered aid to WWII vets as they now do.

SOLUTION-I DO NOT HAVE ONE.

If you think about it, in the American Revolution the colonists who fought that war were not much different then the fighters in the middle east. The english wanted a gentleman's war. You would line up your men in two or three lines. They were single shot smooth bore guns, The first line would shoot and move back to reload while the next line would move up to fire. The bullets were large but there was no accuracy. More like if you keep shooting you will hit something. The english were far superior in that tactic. Our people, some of whom had rifled guns had far greater accuracy but it took far longer to load. Our people would aim for officers. THAT WAS TOTALLY UNGENTLEMANLY, TERRORISTS?

I'm not saying the WWII vets didn't suffer...but they COULD function in society where a LOT of Vietnam vets and on...can't. They become drug addled, homeless...and fail.

I posit it's because of the helplessness they feel when their hands are tied behind their backs and they're sent out as targets.