ADF General discussion thread

[Ocean1Curse]

I'm no economist and perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intent, but if you print an infinite amount of money does not each individual dollar loose value.
Is this not how we end up with a loaf of bread costing $1,000.00?

Hyper inflation like that happens when your objective is to remove labour, productivity, arts and culture from what ever economy.

So recognising that there is in fact fiscal space for a policy of full employment, payed for with the Australian dollar. Now here's the language of the economist, so they use what's called an elastic currency. So any one who wants work but can't find it can walk in the door unemployed and walk out employed.

No one can come in with an ambitious agenda to deliver on the many promises made that if only we tighten the belt that some how that would deliver up prosperity. It would take all of us fighting, Y'know climate indigenous affairs, Asians, everyone would have to work towards full employment.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

You are correct. Government budget is like a house hold budget, Only certain amount comes in each year and you have to live within that amount, At times you can spend out side of that amount via loans, credit cards etc but that does have to be paid back as does the government have to pay back what Australia has to borrow when expenditure outstrips income.

Printing money outside is what is needed to cover inflation/gdp growth is literally the worst thing one can ever do,

But that's not what actually happens because if a household cuts spending then their "income" won't change because of it. But if the government cuts spending then the whole national "income" drops and that's just bad for everyone.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Correct me if I am wrong, but should Australia increase its defence budget to 2.4 of gdp, and spent the extra on overseas products, we would be worse off than if we spent the additional money here in Australia?

Well if you'd ask me. I'd say Australia has a really desirable hand of cards. It's got land for miles, rich soil, the hospitals are world class, jobs are good. But just because Australia has a good hand doesn't mean to say, play those cards out of order in any old fashion. There are procurement processes that have been covered before in this thread, that have built up because of some disasters and cost overruns ect, and now the ADF has to live with in those limits.

 

[vonnoobie]

But that's not what actually happens because if a household cuts spending then their "income" won't change because of it. But if the government cuts spending then the whole national "income" drops and that's just bad for everyone.

Except I'm not saying for the Government to cut spending, In actual fact I have advocated that he Government is gaining too small a share of the tax to GDP ratio. What I am against is spending outside of our means excluding expenditures that will have positive effects on the economy making up for those 'loans'. It is all well and good to say we are going to spend $500 billion a year, But if your tax collected only amounts to $400 billion and you have no plan to improve how much tax you take in then all you are going to get into is a debt level problem such as affects the US, Europe or many other nations. I am stead fast against doing that because there is only one certainty to what will happen, a future government will cut the defence budget and we will be back to square one again.

 

[vonnoobie]

Correct me if I am wrong, but should Australia increase its defence budget to 2.4 of gdp, and spent the extra on overseas products, we would be worse off than if we spent the additional money here in Australia?

Should we increase budget to 2.4%? Well it all depends on what the government and by extension the people of Australia want our forces to be capable of, That is the main driving factor of the budget. Increasing is 20% means you need to have a concrete plan on what those funds will be used for, If we can recruit the extra personnel needed for those roles etc.

Spend it overseas vs Australia? Well it really depends what you are doing with the funds. If it is expanding particular areas lacking in scale to justify an Australian production then yes assuming there is no major negative impact on sustainment however there are still products that Australia can and does produce cheaper then others an if its to say be expanding the navy then yes anything Destroyer sized and smaller should be built here.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Except I'm not saying for the Government to cut spending, In actual fact I have advocated that he Government is gaining too small a share of the tax to GDP ratio. What I am against is spending outside of our means excluding expenditures that will have positive effects on the economy making up for those 'loans'. It is all well and good to say we are going to spend $500 billion a year, But if your tax collected only amounts to $400 billion and you have no plan to improve how much tax you take in then all you are going to get into is a debt level problem such as affects the US, Europe or many other nations. I am stead fast against doing that because there is only one certainty to what will happen, a future government will cut the defence budget and we will be back to square one again.

Well first of all we would have to agree that the ADF is failing and that the recipe in which it is constructed is in question. There was a time 40 years ago when everyone thought opening up the Australian economy would bring in more competition and innovation, and now that recipe is in question.

Now we find ourselves in a position that the ADF is to receive more discipline or that ADF units / sections must be more fungible. I do find it ironic that the governance or the Reserve Bank of Australia has to be asked by senate committees the question of "do you know what you are doing," which is a presupposition to planning - I don't think they know what they're doing. I think the governance structure which the ADF is part of is desperately trying to keep the thing going.

This policy of producing money endlessly with out even knowing where any of it is going to end up is a recipe for disaster. So housing prices have been incredibly inflated and where does all that end. So I'm not saying this whole thing can be saved, I'm saying something else is required. I think what ever plan is implemented will go very badly because of what ever happened on the past.

So Australia has this open market trade policy that sacrifices a lot of manufacturing that in hindsight will end up in global war. 40 years ago when Australia embarked on an unprecedented growth agenda no one would have thought Australia would fall straight into the thucydides trap when one hegemony (America) is confronted by a rising power (China) and eventually the larger power has to stop the smaller rival which is a bad configuration that we do find ourselves in. So this is an issue for foreign policy, and we have to look at the great big global picture and the rules and say well how does Australia fit into it. So I think Australia needs a new set of rules. Australia hasn't yet got a Declaration of Independence, just yet. Top of my list of declarations would be a jobs guarantee backed by the Australian Dollar just as the reserve bank backstops the property owning democracy.

So we have a United States at the centre of our structure and it needs a periphery that includes Australia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and others. It's there China will have to sort out its economic expansion and sort out its relationship with the United States. Y'know and if Australia keeps telling China to stay out and keeps telling smaller states that it can't trade with China or else, so if that is Australia's first move in this new global war then it's like watching a boxer throw haymakers like an ametaure.

 

[buffy9]

Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., Trump’s Pick for Ambassador to Australia, Offers Direct Line to President

It would appear Arthur Culvahouse Jr. has been appointed as the new US ambassador for Australia. Whilst he is more politically inclined that strategically so, the decision has been praised as a good one.

NoCookies | The Australian

In a separate article he notes that:

"It's Australia's area. You're a little more nimble and subtle than we are. We are not abdicating our role, by any means. But we want to pay particular attention to the Australian leaderahip role in our region."

Whilst it does help to signal a great deal of US commitment (alongside a large Ex TS soon); I am concerned that such language may undermine the intentions of our own S. Pacific Pivot (noting that the Pacific island nations don't like it when we call the region "ours").

I gained access to The Australian article via other means. Unable to post transcript from article unfortunately.

 

[Takao]

Well first of all we would have to agree that the ADF is failing and that the recipe in which it is constructed is in question. There was a time 40 years ago when everyone thought opening up the Australian economy would bring in more competition and innovation, and now that recipe is in question.

That's an....interesting demand.

How is the ADF failing? What are it's construction issues? Where is the evidence of these thoughts?

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Edit: Hi Tako

Just off the top of my head the technology roll out is being produced a little slowly. Y'know from memory the navy's destroyer programme asked for 9 vessels, then 6 and now only 3 will be delivered. So I don't really believe that the Australian economy can actually produce 100% the things asked for in the 2016 White Paper. So can the ADF rely on technological solutions to solve there problems right here right now and well I think that's questionable.

 

[ngatimozart]

Edit: Hi Tako

Just off the top of my head the technology roll out is being produced a little slowly. Y'know from memory the navy's destroyer programme asked for 9 vessels, then 6 and now only 3 will be delivered. So I don't really believe that the Australian economy can actually produce 100% the things asked for in the 2016 White Paper. So can the ADF rely on technological solutions to solve there problems right here right now and well I think that's questionable.

Nine Destroyers???? Doubt that very much. Four or maybe five at the outside. I think that you are being somewhat disingenuous with your recent posts. I am struggling to understand the necessity of the dissertations on economic theories and now you claim that Australia will struggle to produce 100% of the things asked for in the 2016 DWP. You also imply that the ADF is relying on technology to solve its problems.

So this has me wondering about the motivation behind your posts; the hidden meaning so to speak. I've queried you before about various claims or assertations that you have made in posts and you've always replied with a ready made glib answer. From reading your various posts, I now have become suspicious about your motives. So pray tell me why I should not start thinking of you as someone for the Moderators to watch extremely closely.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Nine Destroyers???? Doubt that very much. Four or maybe five at the outside. I think that you are being somewhat disingenuous with your recent posts. I am struggling to understand the necessity of the dissertations on economic theories and now you claim that Australia will struggle to produce 100% of the things asked for in the 2016 DWP. You also imply that the ADF is relying on technology to solve its problems.

So this has me wondering about the motivation behind your posts; the hidden meaning so to speak. I've queried you before about various claims or assertations that you have made in posts and you've always replied with a ready made glib answer. From reading your various posts, I now have become suspicious about your motives. So pray tell me why I should not start thinking of you as someone for the Moderators to watch extremely closely.

I'm still sceptical on a bunch of things. I guess that's why I don't keep notes on this stuff. That and commenting has a lot more freedom to explore the possibilities. I mean did you consider that I could be wrong, and I could be wrong. The other day I made a case for why Quade Copper and Israel Folau should be recalled into the Wallabies. Do I think they WILL make the squad? no I don't. Do I think they should be in the squad? Yes. That was such a wast of talent.

And I'll use the same base argument for the ADF. So do I think the ADF will operate with in range of foreign fighter jets and big guns that go bang and well yes I do think that. The LHDs have ski ramps on them and no Fixed wing aircraft to fly off them, and now I am I the one that is supposed to be questionable? No, I don't think so. She's got big tits though so I guess we should ignore the nose? Probably not the best thing to say right now but this is all of my style.

The tragedy I think is that there should be a desire to find some vice or what ever to explain the horror. Even in the media who are ruthlessly criticising the ADF I would claim they are being to soft in some ways. I think the problem with the ADF is it needs some sort of (excuse is the wrong word, but) excuse or religion to do horrible things.

For me the true tragedy is this wave of PTSD when decent guys are made to do horrible things. I think a good excuse could explain it with out having secret investigations to look for some kind of trauma to explain it.

Another thing. Because I enjoyed your Sea Blindness essay, I enjoyed the essay it was well written and so on but I enjoyed the attitude more. But it always shocked me that any theory of politics is totally missing. It's an enigma to me that planning an economy much less a war economy can be left up to market forces in this way. Even by your own numbers, Ngati, RAN is still short 2 Destroyers.

I don't want to explain much more details because I enjoyed your essay so much and you know more about the detail and I would only explain my stupidity to you if I went into anymore of the technical side of things than I already do, there are other ways for me to do that.

But I do hope that there is a structure of power in there some where that doesn't always fall on decent guys. As if to say that the ADF recruitment drive streamed live via Facebook didn't have to comply with Facebooks community standards,Y'know. Then the nice guys might survive a few years more.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm still sceptical on a bunch of things. I guess that's why I don't keep notes on this stuff. That and commenting has a lot more freedom to explore the possibilities. I mean did you consider that I could be wrong, and I could be wrong. The other day I made a case for why Quade Copper and Israel Folau should be recalled into the Wallabies. Do I think they WILL make the squad? no I don't. Do I think they should be in the squad? Yes. That was such a wast of talent.

Don't even go there Cooper is a player us Kiwi love to hate and Folau well he's hoisted himself on his own petard. But I do agree a terrible waste of talent.

And I'll use the same base argument for the ADF. So do I think the ADF will operate with in range of foreign fighter jets and big guns that go bang and well yes I do think that. The LHDs have ski ramps on them and no Fixed wing aircraft to fly off them, and now I am I the one that is supposed to be questionable? No, I don't think so. She's got big tits though so I guess we should ignore the nose? Probably not the best thing to say right now but this is all of my style.

The tragedy I think is that there should be a desire to find some vice or what ever to explain the horror. Even in the media who are ruthlessly criticising the ADF I would claim they are being to soft in some ways. I think the problem with the ADF is it needs some sort of (excuse is the wrong word, but) excuse or religion to do horrible things.

For me the true tragedy is this wave of PTSD when decent guys are made to do horrible things. I think a good excuse could explain it with out having secret investigations to look for some kind of trauma to explain it.

Another thing. Because I enjoyed your Sea Blindness essay, I enjoyed the essay it was well written and so on but I enjoyed the attitude more. But it always shocked me that any theory of politics is totally missing. It's an enigma to me that planning an economy much less a war economy can be left up to market forces in this way. Even by your own numbers, Ngati, RAN is still short 2 Destroyers.

I don't want to explain much more details because I enjoyed your essay so much and you know more about the detail and I would only explain my stupidity to you if I went into anymore of the technical side of things than I already do, there are other ways for me to do that.

But I do hope that there is a structure of power in there some where that doesn't always fall on decent guys. As if to say that the ADF recruitment drive streamed live via Facebook didn't have to comply with Facebooks community standards,Y'know. Then the nice guys might survive a few years more.

Ok, that clarifies the situation.

We avoid politics on here because it is a very divisive issue. In the RSA clubrooms here three topics are forbidden: politics, religion and other members partners, because all three cause fights. To my mind a very sensible rule. If you read my missive on sea blindness properly you should note that there is what you call a political theory in it and that is that Kiwi pollies are narrow minded and don't care one iota about defence. Ngatimozart does have a political theory and you won't find it in any political science or political philosophy text: Ngatimozart isn't fond of pollies.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Don't even go there Cooper is a player us Kiwi love to hate and Folau well he's hoisted himself on his own petard. But I do agree a terrible waste of talent.

Ok, that clarifies the situation.

We avoid politics on here because it is a very divisive issue. In the RSA clubrooms here three topics are forbidden: politics, religion and other members partners, because all three cause fights. To my mind a very sensible rule. If you read my missive on sea blindness properly you should note that there is what you call a political theory in it and that is that Kiwi pollies are narrow minded and don't care one iota about defence. Ngatimozart does have a political theory and you won't find it in any political science or political philosophy text: Ngatimozart isn't fond of pollies.

Yeah, although I get the impression that you are taking the neutral position and that I must prove the negative. Y'know the negative aspects of this or that which wasn't really the thrust of what I was trying to imply.

So with that said I just want to say one more thing about reconstructing the ADF which was really only one part in a more important aspect I was trying to cover which was how to maintain stability through out the broader region.

Well first of all diversity with in the ADF is not diversification so when the ADF are dealing with different nations around the pacific with different democracies and demographics Y'know I think there will be different outcomes.

So I wanted to try and include the small idea that we are dealing with sovereign nations who are not geopolitical tools to play with. I look at the situation like the game we play with dogs by dangling a stick just out of reach, eventually the dog stops jumping because it knows the amount of energy it is wasting won't make it to the treat. This is where I think we are today. So I think that's a big factor in explaining all of these different policies and what I mean by that is that perhaps it's best to fix a little bit of income or relieve health system stresses around the South Pacific. But I think the principle is to ameliorate the conditions in which conflict can erupt.

So thanks for the good korero guys. That's enough chit chat from me on this topic I think. Cheers.

 

[oldsig127]

Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., Trump’s Pick for Ambassador to Australia, Offers Direct Line to President

It would appear Arthur Culvahouse Jr. has been appointed as the new US ambassador for Australia. Whilst he is more politically inclined that strategically so, the decision has been praised as a good one.

Yes, well, the appointment was in November of last year, so hardly newsworthy in and of itself. His reent comments are, but are hardly surprising given the current global political situation

oldsig

 

[hauritz]

Should we increase budget to 2.4%? Well it all depends on what the government and by extension the people of Australia want our forces to be capable of, That is the main driving factor of the budget. Increasing is 20% means you need to have a concrete plan on what those funds will be used for, If we can recruit the extra personnel needed for those roles etc.

Spend it overseas vs Australia? Well it really depends what you are doing with the funds. If it is expanding particular areas lacking in scale to justify an Australian production then yes assuming there is no major negative impact on sustainment however there are still products that Australia can and does produce cheaper then others an if its to say be expanding the navy then yes anything Destroyer sized and smaller should be built here.

2.4%?
Hugh White thinks it should be more like 3.5%.
Analyst flags the prospect of a nuclear-armed Australia as China's rise continues
He criticises both the frigate and submarine programs as being too expensive, advocates more but simpler submarines based on the Collins class, doubling the F-35 fighter fleet and perhaps even acquiring nuclear weapons.

It all sounds a little alarmist but I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility of the defence budget going well beyond the current 2%.

On a slightly more optimistic note, I don't think the level of tension will ever reach cold war levels. Unlike the old Soviet Union China needs to trade with the west. Without trade the Chinese economy might well collapse. I don't see it being beneficial to any side to allow the current strategic situation to worsen to the point where Australia would consider arming itself to the back teeth with nuclear weapons.

 

[ngatimozart]

On a slightly more optimistic note, I don't think the level of tension will ever reach cold war levels. Unlike the old Soviet Union China needs to trade with the west. Without trade the Chinese economy might well collapse. I don't see it being beneficial to any side to allow the current strategic situation to worsen to the point where Australia would consider arming itself to the back teeth with nuclear weapons.

Have a look through history and then reconsider your proposition. Consider Germany's trading relationships in 1914, 1939 and 1941; also Japans trading relationships in 1940 and 1941. What do you think drove Japan to attack through South East Asian and against the US, UK and European colonial interests there, especially when it was, and had been for decades, configured against a Russian attack in Manchuria? In fact it wasn't until late 1944 early 1945 that Japan started moving forces from Manchuria to the Pacific theatre to bolster the defence of the home islands. This is where the bulk of its forces were.

 

[OPSSG]

Have a look through history and then reconsider your proposition. Consider Germany's trading relationships in 1914, 1939 and 1941; also Japans trading relationships in 1940 and 1941. What do you think drove Japan to attack through South East Asian and against the US, UK and European colonial interests there, especially when it was, and had been for decades, configured against a Russian attack in Manchuria? In fact it wasn't until late 1944 early 1945 that Japan started moving forces from Manchuria to the Pacific theatre to bolster the defence of the home islands. This is where the bulk of its forces were.

I agree with your point.

But what if the Black Swan is not China, Taiwan or South China Sea related (or a 1% event in the next 20 years) and we end up working with China and Japan (a 5% event) over Iran and their actions in the Persian Gulf? Because the US has tired of foreign intervention, who will we turn to if we have a failed state in South East Asia? These are not intended as rhetorical questions. I am asking it, as it is a blind spot for me.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

I agree with your point.

But what if the Black Swan is not China, Taiwan or South China Sea related (or a 1% event in the next 20 years) and we end up working with China and Japan (a 5% event) over Iran and their actions in the Persian Gulf? Because the US has tired of foreign intervention, who will we turn to if we have a failed state in South East Asia? These are not intended as rhetorical questions. I am asking it, as it is a blind spot for me.

Perhaps one more comment. I remember when the Berlin Wall fell the consensus at the time was that everything will be wonderful and we will be able to pursue non-productive arts degrees ect. Then this new wave of creativity ended not long after with the Dotcom Bubble. Since then we've had these big ideas of big data and Intellectual Property Laws. What was meant to be a liberal experience after the fall of the wall has turned into a whole bunch of harsher and smaller walls, not as visible as a real wall but just as thick which prevents or even cuts the transmission of ideas. Y'know, and you could lump sanctions in this category of much more ill-defined walls.

So I'm saying that geopolitical relationships (how ever you wish to define those) have this background of pluming issues. Fundamentally I believe those relationships and people and land and so on have become surplus to the requirements of the Rules Based Order. So that is for me the paradox where the Berlin Wall fell and we got much, much more stricter.

To return to your question about who holds the most strongest most friendliest geopolitical hand. I think we should flip that question. Last year 50,000 Australian University students dropped out. I'll link this August 2018 article from the Guardian on this - Will you drop out of university? Report reveals the Australian students at risk

I think the solution to stability is more useless-universities doing non-productive arts degrees or what ever and accept nations with its meaningless pleasures. Because I claim that the paradox of who pays for the military and how which really has no utility function for a population that is surplus to requirements.

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree with your point.

But what if the Black Swan is not China, Taiwan or South China Sea related (or a 1% event in the next 20 years) and we end up working with China and Japan (a 5% event) over Iran and their actions in the Persian Gulf? Because the US has tired of foreign intervention, who will we turn to if we have a failed state in South East Asia? These are not intended as rhetorical questions. I am asking it, as it is a blind spot for me.

I was answering a specific point, but yes the black swan may not be the PRC. It could indeed be an all out Middle East war that turns nuclear, an Indo - Pakistani war that goes the same way, a failed South East Asian state, a war on the Korean peninsula. Many different possibilities and finally one that wouldn't been thought possible eight years ago but now; a political and social collapse and possible civil war in the US?

 

[seaspear]

The aggression by Imperial Japan towards China and south east Asia and the following sanctions targeting the Japanese economy caused Japan to declare war reading the timeline of those events looks like there are lessons still to be learnt