Jack Ma Accuses The US Of Spending $14 Trillion On War Instead Of Its People

Tyler Durden's picture

In a CNBC clip, which slipped between the cracks last week,  Alibaba founder Jack Ma, who has been busy trying to get into Donald Trump's "circle of trust", spoke in Davos and blamed the problems of the United States on the United States itself, as a country which has spent trillions of dollars to wage war, instead of investing in infrastructure and its own people.

Asked by Andrew Ross Sorkin about Trump's decision to impose new tariffs on Chinese imports to protect domestic American manufacturers, Ma said blaming China for any economic issues in the U.S. is misguided. If America is looking to blame anyone, Ma said, it should blame itself.

"It's not that other countries steal jobs from you guys," Ma said. "It's your strategy. Distribute the money and things in a proper way."

According to Ma, the US wasted over $14 trillion in fighting wars over the past 30 years rather than investing in infrastructure at home. Ma named this as the main reason that the US economy is weakening.

Ma was not the only critic of the costly U.S. policies of waging war against terrorism and other enemies outside the homeland, however, the Alibaba founder said this was the reason America's economic growth had weakened, not China's supposed theft of jobs. In fact, Ma called outsourcing a "wonderful" and "perfect" strategy.

"The American multinational companies made millions and millions of dollars from globalization," Ma said. "The past 30 years, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, they've made tens of millions — the profits they've made are much more than the four Chinese banks put together. ... But where did the money go?"

One answer: a couple of offshore bank accounts, or - now that Rothschild is managing Nevada tax havens - onshore.

He added that the U.S. is not distributing or investing its money properly, and that's why many people in the country feel wracked with economic anxiety. Ma added that too much money flows to Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Instead, the country should be helping the Midwest, and Americans "not good in schooling," too.

 At least in theory, much of this forms the basis of Trump's policies. 

"You're supposed to spend money on your own people," Ma said. "Not everybody can pass Harvard, like me." In a previous interview, CNBC said that Ma said he had been rejected by Harvard 10 times. Along those lines, Ma stressed that globalization is a good thing, but it, too, "should be inclusive," with the spoils not just going to the wealthy few.

"The world needs new leadership, but the new leadership is about working together," Ma said. "As a business person, I want the world to share the prosperity together."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
hedgeless_horseman's picture


War is a racket?

Get the fuck out of here!



Since January 27, 1973, as the Vietnam War drew to a close, the Selective Service announced that there would be no further draft calls.  So, for more than 43 years, every person entering the military has done so voluntarily.  At some level, these volunteers all know that the military is not in the business of serving people, the military is in the business of killing people.   "And cousin, business is a-booming!"

Google Chart: Lockheed-Martin vs SP 500

Mr.Sono's picture

"It's not that other countries steal jobs from you guys," Ma said. "It's your strategy. Distribute the money and things in a proper way."

Like creating biggest property bubble the world has ever seen?

TBT or not TBT's picture

Time to slap Ma bitch.   We have spent way more on "helping" our people.   3x what we have spent on warz.    We subsisized dependence and got more dependence.  

Escrava Isaura's picture

You let your right wing ideology gets the best of you, and your bull$hit numbers. If the Americans had the jobs, they wouldn’t need assistance.

Jack Ma statement is correct.


TBT or not TBT's picture

By "jobs" you statist fucks generally mean cashflows, regardless of output that anyone values, i.e. would voluntarily pay for.   

hedgeless_horseman's picture


The US Spent $14 Trillion On War Instead of People?

MIC shareholders and US military personnel are VERY happy with that $14 trillon in sales/income. 

Shareholders and soldiers are people too, Jack.

If some brown people had to die for them to make a living, then that is just what we refer to as business.

TBT or not TBT's picture

and all those foreigners aren't going to kill themselves...or would they?   Some pretty hefty body counts have come in overseas with so little US expenditure.  Not even outsourced.  Just the natives following their customs.   

MalteseFalcon's picture

"Alibaba founder Jack Ma, [...] spoke in Davos and blamed the problems of the United States on the United States itself, as a country which has spent trillions of dollars to wage war, instead of investing in infrastructure and its own people."

Ma should have dropped the mike right there. 

All of the wars since WWII have cost trillions, and returned exactly nothing to the American people.

There are millions of dead yellow, brown, black and white men, women and children as a result of these wars.

Have they also cost America its soul?


auricle's picture

That's not an accusation, that's a fact. 

TBT or not TBT's picture

The reality is that we BOTH waged wars AND built and maintained infrastructure/spent on on our own people AT THE SAME TIME.   In other news we made love AND war.  We walked and chewed gum and a billion other things at the same time.   The proportions of spending sinks and revenue sources are in dispute here though.  Most if what we spend on is entitlements, and that is not new.   It will eat the budget entirely very soon and that is not new.   And that is just on the books federal spending, of whicb military spending is some %, but not insanely outsized compared to what we spend on gigantic domestic vote buying projects that Ma seems to think we do nkt do enough of.  And this guy profits ffom conditions in mkserableq, sick Chicomm run China.  

Ace006's picture

There are millions of dead ... as a result.

Isn't that clearer?

CatsPaw's picture

It did return one thing: Petrol is still priced in Dollars.

detached.amusement's picture

Have they also cost America its soul?


Which America?


Many believe that these courts are all administrative, pretending to be valid Article III courts of
Law. At the time of the bankruptcy of 1933, the Government became an administration for the
creditors in bankruptcy. It was dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, (CC3
p. 103) The U.S. government is now owned by, and is an administrative agency of, the Federal
Reserve/IMF bankers.


I dont really know which America it is that you speak of.  Is it something that exists today?

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) hedgeless_horseman Jan 22, 2017 9:18 PM

Ma is right, but we did worse than that.

In the fog of war, earthquake or color revolution we stole children for sex slaves and stole hearts cut out of the people alive and sold.

Now that I know the truth, it is very hard to trust any of this anymore.

OpTwoMistic's picture

The .gov should never have had 14 T to spend even if they printed it. Their job is to guard the borders. Way too much gov.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Shit, I didn't get a sex slave, stolen or otherwise!   Who was in charge of this program?  At Davos, no doubt.   

DjangoCat's picture

Have to say, nasty as it is, it seems to be true.  What to do?

Ace006's picture

Not just bullshit. Lurid bullshit. Did you come up with that by yourself?

Ace006's picture

Some of those thinkers in yesterday's Million Vaginas March make more sense than you.

stacking12321's picture

jack ma is correct that the usa is misallocating resources, printing money and squandering it while putting future americans in debt servitude.

however, he is wrong that the usa needs to "help" its citizens.

the best help it can give its citizens is to end all government, leave the people alone, stop taxing them and interfering in business, and people will thrive without government interference.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Just limiting govt to its limited missions per the Constitution would do 90% of what you want.  Utopia means, literally now, "nowhere".    Which is where your ideology will always take you.  

stacking12321's picture


my only ideology is, you leave me alone, and i'll leave you alone.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Humans do not "leave each okther alone".  We are a from a species.    Loners in our species routinely die out and have no descendants.    We form families, clans, alliances and make rules and mete out justice.   Arguably, our brains are "social computers" as we exert a great deal of our caring about such matters.  That's no accident   

stacking12321's picture

let me be more specific: leave me alone with your constitutions and your laws, i reject them and i have no use for them. i did not agree to them and thus they do not apply to me.

clans, alliances, and rules are all fine, as long as they are voluntarily agreed to.

as far as dying out and having no descendants, thanks for your "concern", but news flash: we all die! on a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

Ponk's picture

People will inevitably act collectively, because it furthers their interests. If the government disappeared tomorrow (utterly unrealistic hypothesis but...) those that worked collectively, specialised, centralised decision making and outsourced violence would crush everyone else. Welcome to the next government. I lean libertarian, but this brattish, unicorn individualism is moronic tosh.

HillaryOdor's picture

Nobody complains about collective action.  That's not what collectivism means, and it's not contradictory to individualism.  The defining characteristic of collectivism is its coercive nature, so that even when the enforced collective action, which is supposed to be for the common good, stops working for that good (if it ever did in the first place), you can't stop supporting it.  It forces you to keep paying into what always becomes a fascist oligarchy.  Individuals can always come toether through free association to work together for common ends.  That's called freedom and that's how societies take the real great leaps forward.

Ponk's picture

Your definition of collectivism is ideologically loaded so I won't contest it. It doesn't really matter anyway. My contention lies in the misguided view that cooperative human endeavour, the essence of human culture, advancement, and so on, is compatible with quite naïve, absolutist definitions of individual freedom. No, you cannot do whatever you want, whenever you want, and still belong to human society. This is a toddler's definition of freedom. I completely agree with your analysis of disfunctional, murderous state machines, and I think they should be resisted and thrown down, but not so that we can abolish law, politics, the possibility of complex human social systems. I also think that root of the state's malaise is not the state itself as a human institution but its instrumentalisation by capital/financial oligarchy. The real forces of centralisation, tyranny, coercion etc. in our world are financial.

Ace006's picture

The state is always the problem. No one argues for an end to politics. You are clueless about "collectivism" for someone who "leans libertarian."

Centralized decision-making is dangerous and stupid.

Your thinking is confused. And that's not meant as an insult. 

Ponk's picture

Firstly, centralised decision making and the state are not the same thing. Secondly, simply asserting that my thinking is confused does not make it so. Consider whether or not certain foundational assumptions of your own thinking might not be awry. I might 'lean' libertarian but I do not do so dogmatically. The very term collectivism is a fairly flimsy strawman that would not stand up to much unbiased clear-headed scrutiny.

stacking12321's picture


you still refuse to understand:

"No, you cannot do whatever you want, whenever you want, and still belong to human society."

i can and will do whatever i want.
i do not "belong" to society, i do not belong to anyone.
belonging to someone is for slaves.

my society is whomever i choose it to be, and i get along with those around me just fine, mutual respect is all that's required.

Ponk's picture

Oh I understand. Throwing a 'freedom!' tantrum won't change my analysis of the concept of freedom. If you define freedom as the opposite of slavery you will always be slave because your very idea of freedom is expressed in the conceptual language of slavery, bound very tightly to it in fact. 'Free' yourself from those shackles and perhaps you will understand what freedom in itself really is.

stacking12321's picture

you're a petty hypocrite, is what you are.

you tell others not to be dogmatic, while pushing your own dogma.

you talk about strawman arguments without understanding what the term means, and then you go even further by presenting your own strawman argument, trying to put words in my mouth saying that i believe that freedom is the opposite of slavery, and "your very idea of freedom is expressed in the conceptual language of slavery".

when have i ever said any such thing? i challenge you to show me.

you can't, because you made it up, you're a liar.

DjangoCat's picture

This is an easy out.  The truth lies in the human spirit.  We have evidence of strong tribal organisation among small groups of people.  There is no need for global centralisation.  It is the cause of the problems.  It is not accountable.  It favours the rich and powerful.  It is what THEY want.

Resist.... Resist with all our souls.

We can live together without a strong police force.

We are the resistance.



Ponk's picture

I agree. There is no need for global centralisation, in fact, it is a pernicious vector of tyranny.

hoyeru's picture
hoyeru (not verified) Ponk Jan 22, 2017 10:35 PM

omg you said the "c" word, "collectivism" Thats the most evil word here after "Liberals" and "Hillary".

Slarti Bartfast's picture

How long would Jack Meh last, in China, talking about things like abolishing government?

The Management's picture

Purchasing power parity : average chinese dude earning 5$ can buy 15$ worthe. tarrifs are needed period. This doesnt even consider currency buggery - or poor working conditions. The race to the bottom is only necessary if you sell out.

Jeffersonian Liberal's picture

Hey, Ma.

How's the air quality in China these days?

How's the food production?

How much are you ChiComs spending on a military buildup to take Taiwan and international waters.

Never thought I'd say it but...

Fuck off, Ma!

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) Jeffersonian Liberal Jan 22, 2017 9:20 PM

Says the liberal warmonger.

I love how the truth has come out about the left, they want WWlll...for gay rights, tranny bathrooms, tax free tampons, pedophilia, bestiality and free shit.

Left should all be lined up in front of a ditch and shot.

roddy6667's picture

In the vast maority of Chinese cities homes are affordable to the average family. The bubble is only in a few Tier 1 cities. They are not China. You should travel around inside China and look at prices before you make such erroneous statements.

BullyBearish's picture

Too Sensible...We'd Rather go to WAR with RUSSIA

Raffie's picture

Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Geeroge Soros and friends.

Lets hand them over for trail soonest.

Xatos's picture

Jack Ma forgot about all of those subsidized soup kitchens known as food stamps and welfare. 

localsavage's picture

I know that Jack is new but he should realize that he is at DAVOS talking to the people who got that 14 trillion.

FireBrander's picture

Jack Ma is a fucking LIA...er, wait a minute, ah nope, sorry jack, excuse me...you're exactly correct...carry on.

FireBrander's picture

Some of Microsofts money went to USAid and along with money from Visa and MasterCard is "helping" the people of India convert to a "cash-less" society.





India: Crime of the Century – Financial Genocide

"As reported on 1 January 2017 by German investigative business journalist, Norbert Haering, in his blog, “Money and More”, this move was well prepared and financed by Washington through USAID. Mr. Modi didn’t even bother presenting the idea to the Parliament for debate."


techpriest's picture

Between the warfare, welfare, and warfare/welfare known as bureaucratic "jobs," we have 90+% of the budget. End it all, and get back to defense of the territorial United States and the protection of actual person and their property. It'll amount to an 80% budget cut and the ability to pay down debt even after substantial tax cuts.