7 ms·

I wonder how/whether increasing the defense budget would help the German economy. Let me just say right away, that I am in no way advocating for increasing the

by pm90 9y ago

I wonder how/whether increasing the defense budget would help the German economy. Let me just say right away, that I am in no way advocating for increasing the supply of arms and ammunition in the world, which already seems to be at dangerous levels. However, if Germany invested as much in military R&D and a domestic arms industry, I wonder if that would boost the economy as it has done in the US. Also, the immigration system seems less broken for smart people to emigrate to Germany. Could probably get the best global talent as well.

thesumofall 9y ago
Likely difficult to get proper data on that but two things make me doubtful that increased military expenditure would boost its economy: - it's likely that significant part of the spend would go to the US and hence not really help the German economy - recent European (and also US) military projects were pretty much a disaster (the A400M being a point in case). Not that this would be much different in other countries but it leaves you wondering how effective it really is to spend money on the military rather than proven ROI-positive investments such as education Edit: Also, it's not like Germany would really struggle economically ;-)
mtgx 9y ago
I don't think it's as much the fact that the US invested in the military sector as it is the fact that the US invested in something. What I mean by that is that yes, the US likely benefited from investing trillions of dollars in the military. But it could've also benefited, perhaps even more so, if it had invested trillions of dollars in infrastructure. This would have made it easier and cheaper for businesses to ship their products across the states, as well as creating a lot of blue collar people jobs. Perhaps the same would be true if the US invested trillions of taxpayer dollars in other industries, too (healthcare, manufacturing, solar industry, etc).
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  > investing trillions of dollars in the military These are sometimes covert handouts though inflated costs. > But it could've also benefited, perhaps even more so, if it had invested trillions of dollars in infrastructure ...still, military power and influence plays a big part part in international negotiation.
  - mtgx 9y ago
    I'm not saying the US shouldn't invest at all in maintaining its superior military status. I'm mainly saying that a lot of the money is being wasted (like say for buying more tanks, or just to keep certain military jobs, in the same way it's trying to keep coal jobs), and it could've been invested elsewhere with at least as many results (for the economy). I would also say that a lot of the military budget is being wasted on unnecessary wars, so that money doesn't really go into "strengthening US military" either. It's being thrown away in the Middle East.
stale2002 9y ago
This is the broken window fallacy. Every dollar spent "investing" in military r&d, Is one less dollar that can be invested elsewhere. Why not just invest all that money directly into the economy instead of doing it in an extremely roundabout way. Or, I don't know, just pay people to dig holes and fill them back up again, if you believe in the idea of economic "stimulus".
- mickrussom 9y ago
  Sometimes space and military programs will produce technology that later becomes commercially very useful, eg, Raytheon and the microwave oven (First introduced Radarange 1946 - and Amana made a more generally consumable model in 1967). The whole "dig holes and fill them up again" was wonderfully covered in Orwell,1984.. The noble version of this would be Space Exploration, search for unlimited energy (eg, fusion), or cancer cures. The military industrial complex speech given by a sitting US president, Eisenhower, here - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp - more or less predicted that the 1984-style approach to perpetual state of war will be taken unless big changes were made. "War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world. "
realityking 9y ago
_Selling_ weapons to nations not threatening you is a great business. You get to do some R&D, you employ quite a few people (often including manufacturing) and the buyer can't use the thing you sell them to advance their economy. _Buying_ more weapons than you need to defend yourself on the other hand is a terrible investment. If they just sit around and aren't used against someone (or at least the threat of you using them gets you something) is a colossal waste of money. Considering the German society is overall very pacifist, I don't see how buying more weapons (if even they build them within Germany) gets them much of anything.
- gonvaled 9y ago
  Yes, it is very profitable. Those arms will kill somebody. It will even kill you in some years, once the friendly country you sold your arms to is no longer friendly.

by pm90 9y ago

thesumofall 9y ago

Likely difficult to get proper data on that but two things make me doubtful that increased military expenditure would boost its economy: - it's likely that significant part of the spend would go to the US and hence not really help the German economy - recent European (and also US) military projects were pretty much a disaster (the A400M being a point in case). Not that this would be much different in other countries but it leaves you wondering how effective it really is to spend money on the military rather than proven ROI-positive investments such as education Edit: Also, it's not like Germany would really struggle economically ;-)

mtgx 9y ago

I don't think it's as much the fact that the US invested in the military sector as it is the fact that the US invested in something. What I mean by that is that yes, the US likely benefited from investing trillions of dollars in the military. But it could've also benefited, perhaps even more so, if it had invested trillions of dollars in infrastructure. This would have made it easier and cheaper for businesses to ship their products across the states, as well as creating a lot of blue collar people jobs. Perhaps the same would be true if the US invested trillions of taxpayer dollars in other industries, too (healthcare, manufacturing, solar industry, etc).

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
> investing trillions of dollars in the military These are sometimes covert handouts though inflated costs. > But it could've also benefited, perhaps even more so, if it had invested trillions of dollars in infrastructure ...still, military power and influence plays a big part part in international negotiation.
- mtgx 9y ago
  I'm not saying the US shouldn't invest at all in maintaining its superior military status. I'm mainly saying that a lot of the money is being wasted (like say for buying more tanks, or just to keep certain military jobs, in the same way it's trying to keep coal jobs), and it could've been invested elsewhere with at least as many results (for the economy). I would also say that a lot of the military budget is being wasted on unnecessary wars, so that money doesn't really go into "strengthening US military" either. It's being thrown away in the Middle East.

stale2002 9y ago

This is the broken window fallacy. Every dollar spent "investing" in military r&d, Is one less dollar that can be invested elsewhere. Why not just invest all that money directly into the economy instead of doing it in an extremely roundabout way. Or, I don't know, just pay people to dig holes and fill them back up again, if you believe in the idea of economic "stimulus".

mickrussom 9y ago
Sometimes space and military programs will produce technology that later becomes commercially very useful, eg, Raytheon and the microwave oven (First introduced Radarange 1946 - and Amana made a more generally consumable model in 1967). The whole "dig holes and fill them up again" was wonderfully covered in Orwell,1984.. The noble version of this would be Space Exploration, search for unlimited energy (eg, fusion), or cancer cures. The military industrial complex speech given by a sitting US president, Eisenhower, here - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp - more or less predicted that the 1984-style approach to perpetual state of war will be taken unless big changes were made. "War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world. "

realityking 9y ago

_Selling_ weapons to nations not threatening you is a great business. You get to do some R&D, you employ quite a few people (often including manufacturing) and the buyer can't use the thing you sell them to advance their economy. _Buying_ more weapons than you need to defend yourself on the other hand is a terrible investment. If they just sit around and aren't used against someone (or at least the threat of you using them gets you something) is a colossal waste of money. Considering the German society is overall very pacifist, I don't see how buying more weapons (if even they build them within Germany) gets them much of anything.

gonvaled 9y ago
Yes, it is very profitable. Those arms will kill somebody. It will even kill you in some years, once the friendly country you sold your arms to is no longer friendly.