I think the opposite implication is more relevant when assessing military threats like the cost of taking someone else's freedom away militarily which is several magnitudes more costly than defending it. So costly it's much cheaper for a nation to simply buy what they used to have to invade to acquire in the past.
Hence pre-emption……..And make your enemies fight and lose on their soil…………Who like cleaning up after the party?
I expect the US to continue making the world a more dangerous place actually at least until such time as they finally go tits up trying to conquer it.
Perhaps, but will that be in a generation or 200 years? And who will replace them? China?
I'm afraid this ship's sails were heisted by the winds of globalization and is already just a distant blip on the horizon.
Though we likely disagree on the degree of “globalization” that effects Canada, in both negative and positive ways, I agree that a butterfly flapping it’s wings on the other side of the planet will create a breeze felt in Canada………Hence the reasoning behind having a military with the ability to project power beyond our shores.
I don't buy the narrative that the ridiculous sums of money our military is burning through or needs is due to political largess. I think it's just so freakin' expensive it's completely unsustainable. It's no wonder the government feels it needs to mislead and delude us into believing otherwise.
Well it does, look at any major military purchase that requires industrial offsets etc……Cleary a ship that costs ~2 billion to produce in Canada, could be acquired from a South Korean or Spanish yard for a fraction of the cost…….More pointedly, the other areas are the massively bloated bureaucracy, both military and civilian found within NDHQ and the glut of military bases we operate across Canada, without any pain (other than political) we could close at least 1/3rd…..
The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.
Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.