3 ms·
2-a. 2.1% to 3.3% is a 44% difference. So, yes, I'd argue that is disproportionate. The difference is compounded by the fact that the US is the largest economy.
by josho 10y ago
2-a. 2.1% to 3.3% is a 44% difference. So, yes, I'd argue that is disproportionate. The difference is compounded by the fact that the US is the largest economy. So, I think disproportionate is the right term.
The rest of your points skirt the question. Spending on the military isn't supposed to be the driver for the economy or the engine for innovation, those are side benefits. If those really are the goals then the citizens should be demanding that money be spent directly to achieve those benefits. I find it curious that argument is never put forward.
- Thriptic 10y agoSadly directly funding basic research or even translational research is not nearly as popular politically as funding military research. Basic research is often deemed wasteful by the public.
- monkmartinez 10y ago> I find it curious that argument is never put forward. Because the argument you're making isn't a good argument. The perceived waste would just happen in a different "industrial complex" with the perception that security is now weaker. Right or wrong, perceptions are what they are.
- gillygill 10y ago> The perceived waste would just happen in a different "industrial complex" But with significantly less waste of human life.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y agoThe US spends 57% more on military than France. France spends 36% less on their military than the US. Your 44% doesn't really make sense.
- josho 10y agoThe percentage difference between 2.1% and 3.3% is 44%.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y agoThat doesn't mean anything.