3 ms·

your GDP math is off..Military spending and infrastructure spending has the same GDP effects..just different political sleeping partners

mikeyouse 10y ago
This ignores multipliers.. building a military plane employs people, and they go on to spend their incomes but that's essentially the end of it. Building a bridge employs people who spend the money, but then the bridge makes an entire region more productive for decades, leading to much more (and longer lasting) growth -- as long as it's not a bridge to nowhere...
- angry_octet 10y ago
  What is the GDP impact of an effective military though? Maybe the spending on the A10 etc deterred Soviet ambitions in Europe. We are certainly seeing a loss of US influence in Europe and Asia due to Trump devaluing NATO.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    Right but surely we're well past the point of diminishing returns.. what's the incremental value of the 750th A-10 or the 400th C130, or the 1,000th F16 to pick on the air force a bit?
    - angry_octet 10y ago
      It's a classic OA or logistics problem: how many units of X do you need to meet need Y? C-130s to supply the force, F-16s to provide air cover or strike, pilots and aircrew to fly and maintain them, training required to maintain strength and readiness. Everyone does that assessment on the opposing force, to get an estimate of how credible they are. For the US that goal is two wars at the same time, anywhere. Right now they USAF has the problem of being 'hollow': not being able to meet their readiness requirements due to lack of people, operating airframes, or building technical debt through over-using equipment and people. So they have the 750th A-10 because they did the math. It's not about heroes, it's about being organised. The force is more than the individuals or the gadgets.
Retric 10y ago
Most infrastructure has long term value, 90% of military spending does not. The Big dig will probably be useful in 100 years the F-35 is already useless today.

mikeyouse 10y ago

This ignores multipliers.. building a military plane employs people, and they go on to spend their incomes but that's essentially the end of it. Building a bridge employs people who spend the money, but then the bridge makes an entire region more productive for decades, leading to much more (and longer lasting) growth -- as long as it's not a bridge to nowhere...

angry_octet 10y ago
What is the GDP impact of an effective military though? Maybe the spending on the A10 etc deterred Soviet ambitions in Europe. We are certainly seeing a loss of US influence in Europe and Asia due to Trump devaluing NATO.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  Right but surely we're well past the point of diminishing returns.. what's the incremental value of the 750th A-10 or the 400th C130, or the 1,000th F16 to pick on the air force a bit?
  - angry_octet 10y ago
    It's a classic OA or logistics problem: how many units of X do you need to meet need Y? C-130s to supply the force, F-16s to provide air cover or strike, pilots and aircrew to fly and maintain them, training required to maintain strength and readiness. Everyone does that assessment on the opposing force, to get an estimate of how credible they are. For the US that goal is two wars at the same time, anywhere. Right now they USAF has the problem of being 'hollow': not being able to meet their readiness requirements due to lack of people, operating airframes, or building technical debt through over-using equipment and people. So they have the 750th A-10 because they did the math. It's not about heroes, it's about being organised. The force is more than the individuals or the gadgets.

Retric 10y ago

Most infrastructure has long term value, 90% of military spending does not. The Big dig will probably be useful in 100 years the F-35 is already useless today.