• Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly strategically, it’s stupid not to. But I sit here on my high horse, where we are used to sacrificing an enormous amount of tax dollars on military prowess and have the military wealth of like all nations combined. But hey we go bankrupt if we go to the doctors… so there is that.

    I guess my rambling point is it sounds good in theory, but it’s a huge sacrifice.

    • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US would be able to spend more on the military with all the money saved on socialised medicine. Private medicine is about corporations taking a cut, not saving govt money.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Spending doesn’t mean quality or even quantity.

      Americans get swindled big time by weapon manufacturers colluding with government contract drafters, and pharmaceutical companies colluding with medical insurance appraisers and hospitals to raise fictional treatment costs through the roof. All that, while having a taxation pressure pretty much on par with the average in the EU.

      So far, the EU has managed to avoid the medical racketeering, it isn’t unthinkable that it could also avoid the weapons racketeering… unless it keeps buying overpriced shit from the US big bully in town, instead of investing in it’s own manufacturing.

      An EU military, with weapons produced in the EU, would be a huge loss for the US, not necessarily much of a sacrifice for the EU.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem for the EU is they don’t exactly have a sovereign currency, at least not the way The US, UK, AU, CA, and China have. We can always pay more, because the government can just “print more money.” I don’t know if the EU can really do that with the Euro. They should be able to, but they don’t seem to function the way our Federal Government does.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The ECB is more independent, but that doesn’t really matter. The EU can borrow from it just like the US government does from the Federal Reserve, and the ECB’s mandate is to stabilize inflation, no matter what the EU does.

          If the EU decided to borrow massive amounts of Euros to spend on weapon manufacturing and creating its own military, that would have massive ripples on the whole economy and impact inflation, but the ECB would just have to follow.

          The only real difference is in foreign monetary policy: the ECB doesn’t have to listen to EU Parliament’s wishes to change monetary policy in order to weaponize it, while central banks in the US, UK, AU, China, etc. do have to listen to their respective government’s wishes to mess up the internal economy for whatever reason they see convenient.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for the explanation. I’m an American, so trying to keep our politics straight is a full time job. I haven’t had much opportunity to really look at the alternatives.