guns-vs-butter

Open full view…

Guns vs. Butter

dachpian
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:16:42 GMT

Who will be left to feed, if you don't first protect them?

daeyoungkwon
Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:20:35 GMT

I disagree with your statement despite thinking from your perspective, only abstruseness arose among other thoughts. The United States has a copious military power, which make the country seem almost indomitable for other countries. The nation is investing more on weapons despite the country’s demand for needs are gargantuan compared to the supply of it. Thus, war can be prevented by making alliances or be neutral with the countries surrounding nearby. Regarding both countries near the U.S. have a shortage of provision, trading weapons for other resources such as wood and labor with other nations nearby will create an appreciable wealth. The wealth made from trades, tariffs earned from these trades, and taxes in the U.S collected from citizen, will support the welfare for the citizens who request for needs. Moreover, war is a barbaric movement which should not happen; it takes away of lives of human. However, the U.S. currently has a belligerent trait causing more men and women to die.

lbakiri
Fri, 01 Sep 2017 20:02:29 GMT

I partly disagree with you, GUNS ARE IMPORTANT. But if the United States concentrate on what is good for the state of the country and stop invading and interfering with other countries, that would save it a lot of bucks that are needed to be invested in the country, for example, the health sector that now is in disarray. For example, America is by far the largest producer and exporter of military armaments besides many other sectors, if only it stops being “the policemen” of the world and minds its own business, looks after its internal affairs and interests, things will change enormously for the better of the state of the country. It can then afford to reduce taxes, improve productivity, infrastructure, create new employment, industries and prosperity for its people. The United States will remain the dominating superpower for the foreseeable future, but I feel it needs to change its foreign policies for it to prosper. At present we know that the United States has “big guns”, could easily achieve not “butter” but “clotted cream”.

hyungminseo
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 12:19:35 GMT

I agree with you. Because of the result of scarcity, we must make every decisions in what must be given up in order to achieve something else. The amount of the United States investing on their military power is as same as how much they could have spent on what the people need instead. The United States is currently spending over six hundred billion dollars on their military. They even have half of active aircrafts in the world, and the opportunity cost of those could be institutions like hospital, school, bridges, and more. If they invest more on institution, not only will the consumers gain beneficial services for their living, but also there will be increase in employment. Due to that, more amount of taxes will be collected and spent on our domestic needs like health and social security. Few of them can also be used to support their military with enough amount.

larakuru
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 14:12:24 GMT

I agree because looking at the issue from the guns versus butter perspective having just two possible choices to allocate its finite resources the United States currently is investing a majority of its resources on guns rather than butter. However, the more important issue that we face looking at the United States is that the majority of the resources that are currently invested in the US military isn’t necessarily to protect its own nation as assumed in the guns vs butter model. It is more used to grant and sustain its control as influential nation in order to profit from that position. Therefore can we really apply the guns versus butter example on the United States stating that it is more important to protect your people than to feed them? I believe that a nation has to invest its resources into the military to such an extent that it can grant its citizens freedom and protect its own sovereignty, however the majority of resources should be invested in butter. If I would run for the US presidency I would allocate the majority of resources on butter and just the necessities on guns.

kilanimunian
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 14:28:13 GMT

I agree with you. After the second world war, the United States experienced a remarkable period of high economic growth rates, rising real income and a low inflation. Gross domestic product (In the late 80's) grew almost two fold to almost three trillion Dollars, while disposable income rose by fifty percent. The defence spending that went along with fighting the cold war was the engine of prosperity that allowed America to enjoy a very high standard of living. This, in turn, allowed America to sustain high levels of military spending, cold war defence spending was a cost that the country could afford as a result of its increasing productive capacity. The national security state was made possible by the huge and growing American economy. Therefore the United States is able to feed and protect its people at the same time and remains to this day the most powerful country on the planet economically and militarily.

souheil
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 19:21:30 GMT

I humbly disagree, with the utmost respect. The United States of America is a huge country, in every way (population, economy, influence, global hub, etc.), meaning that with such a powerful nation comes powerful enemies, due to their will to dominate the scarcity of finite resources. It is very true that, due to this, the United States of America would be gambling with these precious and finite resources by having a weak military, however, if one is to go to the reason behind its increasingly militaristic behavior, one is to take a look at the causation behind this. Firstly, the enemies in 'competition over finite resources' that have caused this. After the Cold War's end, an expensive war which caused one of both sides to bankrupt itself, the United States began to slowly sink into an irreversible debt. This started 30 years ago when Ronald Regan first began to take loans from banks in order to stop the recession, starting what is known today as "Reaganomics". This caused the United States to prioritize the repayment of this debt, for the sake of the dollar (as it woul d prevent them from going bankrupt), and has expanded its military as a private sector in order to generate huge profits from the industry. This not only arms its enemies but is also unnecessary. The United States controls the global currency (USD), which is the reason why China (America's post-Cold War threat) has been loaning money to the US it knows there is a chance it might not get back. This is because the whole world cannot afford the US from getting bankrupt. This doesn't mean that the US should just exploit it and spend much more money, as money, just like any other resource, is finite. Rather, it should contribute large portions of its military budget to civilian needs. Developing the civilian sector, such as urbanization, would heavily increase the GDP, much more than it will increase the expenditure. Investing in this so-called 'butter' will not be from an altruistic background from the United States State Dept, but rather a beneficial factor to their stance in the competition for finite resources. This is most important, as once the debt obstacle is out of the way, the US will truly have a larger economy than China, a country with a rapidly-growing economy. On the other hand, it is true that following recent events, the US has been receiving unprecedented competition from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, where its allies, such as Japan, are being forced to pay large sums to North Korea solely due to the threat it poses with nuclear armaments, or in this case, 'guns'. It is hence true that the United States must remain the country which holds the longest, and pointiest stick, in order to both protect its citizens as well as allow its allies to prosper. This can all be achieved, however, if the US economy slowly invests its budget with the aim of growing its economy, it will be able to support an even larger military than ever before. The US is capable of doing this, as its current military budget rests at $632 bln dollars (US Economy Real TIme Clock), but China, coming in at 2nd place, with the third most powerful military in the world, spends about a third of that. In conclusion, You might be able to get some good guns after u get some butter to strengthen you, but guns can never get you butter, even when you are trying to get it from someone else, as at this day and age, everybody else will side with that person being the victim. Therefore, chosing butter over guns is a wise decision for the US.

alvaroortiz
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 19:45:46 GMT

I agree with you statement, guns are important, and more know more when it looks that North Korea is doing nuclear tests. Of course United States have a very powerful military and the two countries that are near the U.S. (Mexico & Canada) it looks like there are not going to try to fight with the U.S., but what happen with other countries like North Korea for example? Imagine that North Korea start a war with the U.S. and they are not putting emphasis in guns during that time... The most powerful country in the world needs to emphasis more in guns than butter, guns can´t be scarcity in any country. Otherwise, the one don't need to set aside the butter, because the people also need some needs. In my opinion, U.S. is doing a right thing right know putting emphasis in guns and the protection of their territory, and at the same time having one of the most powers economics in the world. If they put more emphasis in butter, than guns, they will lose security and just gain some extra needs that no-one really needs to have to live, thy are just more facilities

rmelnikov
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 05:10:53 GMT

I disagree with all of you, and yet I console that the United States is investing a disproportionate, irrationally absurd amount of funds into military power (despite having the largest arms sector in the world), and I completely understand that if the focus of the production shifted from the military to the foodstuffs sector massive changes, perhaps even in the productivity of the workforce, would be observed. Furthermore, it is trivial to see how this military prowess creates a prominent and feared nation, as well as, bestows to the people a sense of security and national pride. However, all of you seem to be labouring under the delusion that this is a static dissicon. A fundamental property of markets and investments is that they shift and change to adjust to the needs and wants of the consumers. Granted this “scary speak of change” will not please some republican candidates, but I assume we are all rational people here. The answer to the Guns vs Butter problem is a shifting allocation of guns and of butter based on the needs of the nation. Having understood all that, the USA allocated 54%(according to nationalpriorities.org.) of its governmental funds to military spending, this investment has put it as number one military power in the world. Clearly the need of security here is satisfied. However, before one makes an ultra-radical decision to shift 20% of governmental funds from military to foodstuffs one must console that there is a limit to radicality before you reach a flawed system. Thus I vow to slowly cap military spending and leech first, small percentages off the military spending every year, and every subsequent year allocate more and more percentages into the foodstuffs market until the need for foodstuffs production is satisfied or the need for weapons manufacturing is require. If the need for urgent weaponry arises, in the case of war, the united states still has its landforce, and technology (it's not like they disappear into thin air like foodstuffs) and the funding will be adjusted to suit the production of the military with the same method if not maybe a little accelerated.

semihpence
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 06:43:04 GMT

I disagree with you because 6.3 million US citizens are starving to death. It is more important to feed the citizen then making a war and spending 229 billion on guns. Instead of investing the money on guns they could invest the money into infrastructure.If the US decide to invest the money on the infrastructure then the poverty rate would decrease so the government could stop paying the people who make under year average money. If they stop paying the people who make year average money then the government could raise the tax and get gain more money so they could invest the money which they made in military so they can buy more guns and protect the civilian in America.

omarnihadkoperly
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 07:16:40 GMT

I agree that food is more important for the citizens because there is a lot of people that doesn’t have food and the US already have a strong military basis. If the US decides to invest more money for guns then the starve rate will increase and lots of people will not be able to work because the US will invest more money to guns then work places. If the US decides to invest money for education and work places then more people will move to the US because the ability of having a work is more ability, then they could raise the tax and make more money to invest other stuff like guns.

tanacar
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:24:02 GMT

The United States of America has invested cleverly in its military, as it has drastically benefited it in terms of status on the global scale over the past two centuries. With such a large threat it poses to the rest of the world, the United States' voice is well heard and gets what it wants in the interests of its people. The citizens of the United States have most benefited from this, as they have achieved a very high standard of living due to the guns. Yes, it is only due to the competition advantage in the scarcity of finite resources, and yes, it is immoral, as it is at the cost of other countries' resources, but the US is certainly making a better decision for itself for choosing guns over butter.

yuxiaohe
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:29:52 GMT

I disagree with you. Because of the scarce resource, we have to make a decision between the two options - guns or butter. The United States made a really obvious decision that they put tons of money on military. The United States Started to build military since the World War II. It made U.S. become one of the strongest countries in the world during that time period even now. Based on the record, in 2015, the United States spent 601 million dollars on military. It's even more than the next 7 highest spending countries combined which is insane, but we have to say the advanced military and technology do accomplish the United States unshakeable position in the world. On the other hand, as the result of choosing guns, many U.S. citizens face to the starving. As a fact, one in six people in the United States face to hungry problem. The United States have the ability to solve the starving problem by putting more money on butter, but they did not which I think it's really not reasonable. When we allocate the scarce resource, I think it's really necessary for us to consider put t he resource on what people need. In my opinion, butter is always what people really need and guns are what government want. It's true that better military could protect the United States better, but live in peaceful world, there won't be lots of war and invasion occurred. The really meaning behind the guns is to keep the control of the world. Therefore I will put the major resource on butter and necessaries for the guns.

elias_t
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 12:55:17 GMT

I disagree with Yuxiao however, I understand where you're coming from regardless The United States has chosen to spend most of their annual budget for military advancement 54% (according to nationalpriorities.org.) This investment was a clever and thought through the plan as it creates a sense of a security for the people and makes other countries see The United States as a strong/feared nation. The United States military strength does not only make their county feared throughout the world it also creates a title and thanks to this title of power and success their ideologies are heard throughout the world this is a result of The United States military power. The obscure amount of spending for military purposes results in less budget for every other project, in this case, it's butter. According to Semih "6.3 million US citizens are starving to death." This is a direct consequence of the excessive spending for military purposes so ultimately I believe a country need s a strong military to succeed however, the military spending must be reduced to the point where other projects and ideas are fundable.

neriskanbolat
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 17:57:26 GMT

I disagree with Elias. Of course, butter is also important for people but guns are more important. Becuase it makes that country look more powerful. Other countries will be scared to start a war with them because of their military power. The United States is doing this. They pay really high for their military force and that makes them look more powerful than the other countries. And paying more money on military also gives more job opportunities. Because if there are more guns, it means that more people can get jobs in military forces. And this will also make their economy better. Also if they need resources, with their powerful military force they can easily take it by starting a war. Because famine will lead to war. But if they want to do in the more peaceful way they can offer other countries to protect them by getting fees from them and use that money to buy some resources.

Donne Hudson
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 18:29:22 GMT

I disagree, firstly, there are other ways to increase the employment rate such as curating jobs that are designated to farming which would be necessary for food production. Farming is better for a country because you are able to then use the goods for your people and also for exports. Exporting goods will be very beneficial towards the economy of the nation and for its people. It is important for a nation to have a stable military force as it controls its security, however that does not reason the start of a war. The point of the military is to protect its people in case of war but it is very unnecessary to begin one for the cause you are stating. Also, by arguing famine leads to war, you are contemplating that famine is one of the causes of war. In order to prevent such a cause, one must feed its people.

nula_saka
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 03:49:45 GMT

I completely agree with Donne. The most important aspect of her reasons regard famine and war. There have been thousands of studies qns research proving that hunger belongs to one of the most persistent causes of violent conflict. In 2014 more than 13 million civilians had to migrate from their country because of the ongoing civil wars that still continue today. These people came from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia were political, social, and economical crisis' are extreme. These nations also score cery low on the Global Hunger Index (GHI) due to their hunger levels. The conflicts that then result from these war zones include huge problems with farming as farmer can no longer attend their fields and lose high amounts of production, agricultural infrastructure gets destroyed, possible suffer within the trade industry, and the food becomes too limited or too expensive causing the people to buy less and therefor eat less. Unequal access to income, land and natural resources can easily lead to frustration with causes violent conflicts. There are already m ean Non-Governmental Organizations that deal with these issues and try to help countries where the problem is the most severe. According to Welthungerhilfe.de it is crucial, to tackle the underlying causes of hunger and armed conflicts, including poverty and increasing inequality, and to hold governments responsible for this. Therefor butter should come before guns.

fouadnajjar
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 06:13:52 GMT

I totally agree with you Nula and I say Butter over guns for sure. To start off in the production possibility frontier the opportunity cost will allow having some guns however the larger output will be butter. THis is because I believe that if we only get guns whats is the point of protecting the starving crowd. However, you may say who will protect them if they only eat. Well if people or healthy they can protect themselves to a certain extent and they may need some aid from guns. However, there is always an uncertainty for a war to break out for that reason I don't think guns should be the priority as there is the uncertainty of being used. To add on, the fact that good is limited and will disappear over a period of time is why it needs to be invested in after all it is a necessity in a daily life. In 2015 we spent 54% of our budget which is over a have a trillion dollar to protect our selves (NTI). That is 45% of the world's weapons when we have the population of less than 5% of the population (Wolrd Bank). These numbers are not proportional and despite all the fund we sent going to the military forces we still have 14.3% of our population living in poverty (UC Davis) and this has to change. So for this year, i decided I want to feed my people and not kill them.

dachpian
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 07:46:35 GMT

Wrap your head with something...because I am about to BLOW your mind: Niccolo Machiavelli famously advised future leaders that, “it is better to feared than loved”. A leader of any nation faces an economic conundrum having to decide whether he or she should concentrate the nation’s resources on producing guns to protect his/her people or butter to feed it’s citizens. The answer is simple and obvious…guns. Should a leader decide to concentrate the majority of its resources on butter to feed the country, he/she consequently makes the country vulnerable to foreign invasion. What neighboring country would not want to attack/invade/pillage/control a neighboring country rich in consumable resources not having the proper capabilities for defense? With a concentration in producing guns over butter the leader and the nation together face a trade-off of producing less food for its citizens. This opportunity cost can easily be remedied through the threat of violent warfare. A nation can either be a hawk or a dove, an offender or a defender, one whom attacks or becomes atta cked. The choice is simple, I choose to be the hawk, the offender, the attacker. In order to feed my people, I do not always have to physically attack a neighboring country, I can use words to attack them and still gain the same results. With the arsenal my citizens have created my nation can use threat of these weapons in order to gain financial and agricultural aid to help feed my people. I have yet to mention the possibilities of selling my nations arms to help feed my people. Which is more scarce, food or weapons? If you chose the latter then you have chosen correctly. Because weapons are of high demand among all nations, my nation would be able to sell our weapons for a high price due to the low supply and constant demand of weapons. Take the example of North Korea and it’s former leader, Kim Jong Il. Agriculturally and economically speaking, North Korea and its citizens have been in peril for years with the inability to be sustainable. Kim Jong Il’s erratic and unpredictable behavior has allowed him to receive million upon millions of dollars a year from foreign aid. Kim Jong Il has chosen to be a hawk, an offender, an attacker and his citizens are fine because of it. North Korean Food Crisis to Be Eased by Europe Aid - NYTimes.com www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/world/asia/04union.html Trend Lines | Using Food Aid to Contain North Korea's Nuclear ... http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/9673/using-food-aid-to-contain-north-koreas-nuclear-ambitions   U.S. Assistance to North Korea www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21834.pdf