[at-fates-hands]

For some perspective:

Finalnd's military budget: 300 million

US military budget: 700 BILLION

The US could dump a lot of money into these social services to address people who are homeless, drug addicts, and other people on the fringes of society.

We are however, constantly put in a place where other nations depend on us for their security. As such, they don't have to have a massive defensive budget when they can rely on us to take care of them.

If we had a military budget that was more inline with simply keeping our own country safe, we would have a ton more money to take care of the people who really need it.

[ASlave2Gravity]

But isn't the US hegemony all about dictating global markets, ect. ? So whilst the US might be ensuring other nation's security, it is also ensuring that the markets are in its desired condition. This modus operandi, I suppose, means that the US homeless will suffer more, as those desired conditions are desired by the people who are able to control the military decisions, and not the homeless, who would most likely want cheaper health care & housing.

[huffmsa]

Yeah, but only because we needed the oil. But now that we're a net exporter, no need to be abroad

[ASlave2Gravity]

Do you think the hegemony is only about oil?

[pjc50]

You'd be surprised at how many of the homeless are veterans with PTSD.

[ASlave2Gravity]

I don't find that surprising at all! It's a tragedy.

[tlaturi]

That is not correct. The Finnish military budget is 3.2 billion Euros ($3.6B). On top of that, Finland has a universal male conscription, costs of which are not included. (I.e. the opportunity cost of being in the army)

Source: https://www.defmin.fi/files/4804/Puolustusministerion_hallin...

[at-fates-hands]

My bad, I was actually reading the chart wrong:

https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/military-expenditure

Military Expenditure in Finland increased to 3615 USD Million in 2018 from 3430 USD Million in 2017.

Which you're correct, it's actually 3.6 Billion. US military spending still dwarfs Finland's, but not nearly as paltry as I had originally stated.

[distances]

Others have additionally already pointed out how Finland isn't in NATO either. The defence doesn't expect or imagine US intervention, but also doesn't expect a nuke attack. Defence matching the threat, full conscription and modern cost-conscious armament purchases to counter the long land border with Russia.

[ThrowawayR2]

> "If we had a military budget that was more inline with simply keeping our own country safe, we would have a ton more money to take care of the people who really need it."

Resulting in a new wave of rearmament and arms races across the entire planet as everybody scrambles to build up their military in the resulting power vacuum. If you want to see another wave of all-out wars in your lifetime, well, that's how you get it.

The United States has been amply repaid for its military budget (despite it being put to stupid use by certain Presidents) in terms of global political and economic stability, which is good for business.

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

For some more perspective...

Finland's military GDP spending is around 4%, very close to America's military GDP spending, but the two countries have largely different GDPs of course. That's the fair way to compare things though.

Also a very large portion of the military budget goes to the salary's of our military employees as well as R&D. We wouldn't have the internet if it wasn't for ARPA.

And finally, Finland isn't a superpower.

[727262826hdhd]

The only perspective this gives is perspective into your personal worldview. Why wouldn't you use % of total spending or frame it relative to national gdp if you were trying to make a meaningful comparison between the two countries?

[34679]

Oregon's budget for retired state employees: $100 Billion

I tried to find the same for California, but it seems they do a better job of hiding it.

My point is that we are spending a tremendous amount of money on former government employees, so they can have nice homes, good healthcare, and a quality education for their children. But in the process, we're neglecting a large portion of the population that those people were supposed to be serving.

[mattkrause]

What would you do instead?

It takes good, motivated staff to run an effective government department. Those same people have a lot of options, so the government has to compete for them somehow.

We’re unwilling to pay them high salaries (take a look at the federal pay scales: GS-12, which is usually a scientist with a grad degree, starts at $66k). Benefits seem a little more politically palatable, so the government competes on those instead: we won’t pay you a lot, but you can earn a (slightly) better retirement instead.

Without either, who’s going to work for the government? Do you really want a government full of people who can’t land any other job?

[34679]

What would I do? Reduce the number of state employees. And I'd do it without firing anyone. See: Gary Johnson, New Mexico.

When an existing employee retires or otherwise ends their employment with the state, don't hire a replacement unless that job is critical to the operation of the government.

[pjc50]

That's obviously not the correct number; perhaps that's the total liability for all future pensions?

It's not clear what the actual pensions number is, but the total budget for absolutely everything for the two years 2019-21 for Oregon appears to be $82bn from Schedule VI of https://www.oregon.gov/das/Financial/Documents/2019-21_gb.pd...

[jandrese]

If I'm looking for money to help the poor I'm not going to start by raiding pensions. That would be self destructive.

[mnm1]

Yes, how terrible that we are fulfilling our contractual obligations to people who have worked for decades in our government. It's a travesty indeed! Should we just exterminate them in camps now that they are of no use to us? Or what would you propose?

[commandlinefan]

Assuming, of course, that if Finland had to provide for its own defense (rather than relying on us), they would still have money left over for social programs.

[pjc50]

Accusing Finland of not providing for its own defense is an insult to the memory of the Winter War. It's one of the few European countries that still has universal conscription!

[Gravityloss]

How are you providing for the defense of Finland? Maybe you're a conscript in the Finnish armed forces?

[arethuza]

Why do you think Finland depends on the US - they aren't in NATO?

[commandlinefan]

Well, that’s OP’s premise (which I do agree with). He says the U.S. spends 700 billion/year on defense, but needs less and that the rest is spent protecting other countries. There are 195 countries, so if that’s distributed evenly, we’re contributing about 3.5 billion/country/year, that they would each have to come up with if we stopped. Now, maybe it’s not evenly distributed like that - maybe Finland doesn’t rely on U.S. presence at all (but I think you, and they, would be surprised), but the point is that we’re indirectly subsidizing a lot of these social programs by providing military defense for a lot of these countries.

[arethuza]

One interesting fact about Finland that I learned from "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Ellsberg is that in the event of a "general war" the US attack on the Soviet Union was expected to completely destroy Finland and kill at least 100 million in Western Europe.

[aglavine]

1. USA cuts military budget

2. Russia invades Finland. USA does nothing.

3. Homelessness in Finland peaks

[tappio]

Why would USA defend Finland as Finland is not part of NATO? The same way they defended Ukraine as Russia occupied Crimea and invaded East Ukraine?

[distances]

Finland has always prepared to defend a Russian attack alone, for obvious historical reasons. Russia being a superpower, or trying to be at least, means the selected defence doctrine is to make an attack too expensive to be worth it. Definitely isn't depending on US military intervention -- last time around US was siding with the Soviets, after all.