5 ms·

Depends if we plan on invading somewhere or not to my eye—it’s how our ridiculous level of defense spending will actually provide returns.

by drb91 8y ago

achamayou 8y ago
The last few invasions have not exactly helped with the deficit, have they?
whatshisface 8y ago
You could probably read through the speeches of some historical dictators to find a good way to express the idea of "the real politics is what things fall apart in to when order breaks down." Sure, the national debt exists on one level higher than the stuff the defense spending is buying, but so is our trade with other countries and most of our livelihoods. If the civility of our relationship with, say, China breaks down to the point that it's obvious we won't pay our debts, a lot of other things will break down along with it - perhaps enough to qualify as a gigantic disaster. The US will be able to keep foreign soldiers off its territory but you and I could be out on the streets with a whole lot less.
- simbas 8y ago
  something something list
Someone1234 8y ago
Defense spending is largely a jobs program. The only question is, if you're going to have a trillion dollar jobs program if the rate of return on investment isn't higher in e.g. infrastructure spending than defense.
- digianarchist 8y ago
  If it's a jobs program then the money would be better spent in an FDR like manner - large infrastructure projects that support the economy, bridges, trains, internet etc.
  - mdorazio 8y ago
    That's questionable. Defense employs a lot of white collar workers in things like design and development of aircraft, weapons systems, satellites, SIGINT, etc. It's not clear that the same level of jobs would be there for an FDR-like program. Sure, the country's infrastructure would be better off and we would probably have more people employed per dollar, but I'm not sure the economy as a whole would be better off.
    - wycs 8y ago
      Presumably these white collar workers are valuable and employeeing them with confiscated money on a useless task is much worse for the economy than both the counterfactual in which the government does not bid for their labor and the one in which these resources are used to subsidize public goods such as basic science research and merit goods such as public infrastructure.
      - mdorazio 8y ago
        Again, I'm not convinced that's the case. You're implying that, for example, almost the entirety of the employees at Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop, General Dynamics, etc. and a good chunk of the employees at companies like Boeing would somehow be redistributed into the broader economy at a similar compensation level. That's upwards of a million white collar workers. You can't magic all those people into the broader economy without serious impacts, and replacing the expenditure on their salaries with expenditure on things like basic research and public infrastructure does not equate to the same economic outcome. I'm pretty sure doing so would further stratify the economy by replacing solid middle class jobs with a few tech and research jobs and a lot of blue collar jobs.
        bluedino 8y ago
        It’d help correct inflated housing prices. Think of all the paper pushers with security clearances making $100k+
  - lixtra 8y ago
- meowface 8y ago
  It's also a geopolitical strategy. Even if that spending is rarely ever actualized in an armed conflict, the threat to do so still exists from the perspective of other countries. It's debatable how effective that is, but it's disingenuous to say it's just done for jobs or making contractors rich.
  - drb91 8y ago
    I agree some spending makes sense. The F-35 program does not give me a lot of encouragement we’re investing in good places.
chrissnell 8y ago
Extremely unlikely that we would unilaterally invade another country under President Trump. That Bush-era hawkish interventionist doctrine is pretty much dead. The diplomacy with North Korea is a good example of the new way. I'm quite certain that we would be fighting some kind of conflict with them if people like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney were in the White House today. Say what you want about Trump and his policies but the America-focused policies of his administration aren't going to squander this economy by starting a new fraudulent and unnecessary war on the other side of the world.
- learc83 8y ago
  >like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney John Bolton is exactly like those 2 and he's the National Security Advisor.
- ethbro 8y ago
  The US National Security Advisor (and at one time potential Secretary of State)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#Political_positions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#Political_posit...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I'm quite certain that we would be fighting some kind of conflict with them if people like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney were in the White House today. Did they discover oil since the last time Wolfowitz was in a position if influence. Because that was expressly cited as the reason Iraq was invaded and North Korea not then, by Wolfowitz. GWBush-era foreign policy had the kind of focus on domestic economic interests that Trump pretends to have, the main difference is that it had some substantive coherence rather than focus only as a PR veneer over a group of incompetently managed competing interests seeking personal advantage. That's not to say the say the execution of Bush foreign policy wasn't grossly incompetent, but and it's formulation wasn't grossly immoral, to be sure. Now, Venezuela might be a target of active intervention if the Bush team were still in charge.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Venezuela has generally been in crisis in the 20th (and start of the 21st century). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_crisis_(disambiguation) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_crisis_(disambigu... If the US hadn't brokered a debt repayment deal by threatening naval force against Britain, Germany, and Italy's blockade in 1903, there would likely still be a European-controlled port in Venezuela.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
Invade to spend trillions more on that country? No thanks. Gone are the "to the winner go the spoils" days. Frankly, I think we're blamed for the deaths and mess in Iraq and maybe Libya (not invaded but...). Democracy is great, in theory, in reality they have seen their lives turned upside down.
- drb91 8y ago
  It all depends on perspective. If you’re friends with a bunch of defense contractors, war could spell good times for you. Hanging out around DC gives me the impression there are quite a few defense contractors.

Depends if we plan on invading somewhere or not to my eye—it’s how our ridiculous level of defense spending will actually provide returns.

by drb91 8y ago

Depends if we plan on invading somewhere or not to my eye—it’s how our ridiculous level of defense spending will actually provide returns.

achamayou 8y ago

The last few invasions have not exactly helped with the deficit, have they?

whatshisface 8y ago

You could probably read through the speeches of some historical dictators to find a good way to express the idea of "the real politics is what things fall apart in to when order breaks down." Sure, the national debt exists on one level higher than the stuff the defense spending is buying, but so is our trade with other countries and most of our livelihoods. If the civility of our relationship with, say, China breaks down to the point that it's obvious we won't pay our debts, a lot of other things will break down along with it - perhaps enough to qualify as a gigantic disaster. The US will be able to keep foreign soldiers off its territory but you and I could be out on the streets with a whole lot less.

simbas 8y ago
something something list

Someone1234 8y ago

Defense spending is largely a jobs program. The only question is, if you're going to have a trillion dollar jobs program if the rate of return on investment isn't higher in e.g. infrastructure spending than defense.

digianarchist 8y ago
If it's a jobs program then the money would be better spent in an FDR like manner - large infrastructure projects that support the economy, bridges, trains, internet etc.
- mdorazio 8y ago
  That's questionable. Defense employs a lot of white collar workers in things like design and development of aircraft, weapons systems, satellites, SIGINT, etc. It's not clear that the same level of jobs would be there for an FDR-like program. Sure, the country's infrastructure would be better off and we would probably have more people employed per dollar, but I'm not sure the economy as a whole would be better off.
  - wycs 8y ago
    Presumably these white collar workers are valuable and employeeing them with confiscated money on a useless task is much worse for the economy than both the counterfactual in which the government does not bid for their labor and the one in which these resources are used to subsidize public goods such as basic science research and merit goods such as public infrastructure.
    - mdorazio 8y ago
      Again, I'm not convinced that's the case. You're implying that, for example, almost the entirety of the employees at Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop, General Dynamics, etc. and a good chunk of the employees at companies like Boeing would somehow be redistributed into the broader economy at a similar compensation level. That's upwards of a million white collar workers. You can't magic all those people into the broader economy without serious impacts, and replacing the expenditure on their salaries with expenditure on things like basic research and public infrastructure does not equate to the same economic outcome. I'm pretty sure doing so would further stratify the economy by replacing solid middle class jobs with a few tech and research jobs and a lot of blue collar jobs.
      - bluedino 8y ago
        It’d help correct inflated housing prices. Think of all the paper pushers with security clearances making $100k+
- lixtra 8y ago
meowface 8y ago
It's also a geopolitical strategy. Even if that spending is rarely ever actualized in an armed conflict, the threat to do so still exists from the perspective of other countries. It's debatable how effective that is, but it's disingenuous to say it's just done for jobs or making contractors rich.
- drb91 8y ago
  I agree some spending makes sense. The F-35 program does not give me a lot of encouragement we’re investing in good places.

chrissnell 8y ago

Extremely unlikely that we would unilaterally invade another country under President Trump. That Bush-era hawkish interventionist doctrine is pretty much dead. The diplomacy with North Korea is a good example of the new way. I'm quite certain that we would be fighting some kind of conflict with them if people like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney were in the White House today. Say what you want about Trump and his policies but the America-focused policies of his administration aren't going to squander this economy by starting a new fraudulent and unnecessary war on the other side of the world.

learc83 8y ago
>like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney John Bolton is exactly like those 2 and he's the National Security Advisor.
ethbro 8y ago
The US National Security Advisor (and at one time potential Secretary of State)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#Political_positions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#Political_posit...
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I'm quite certain that we would be fighting some kind of conflict with them if people like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney were in the White House today. Did they discover oil since the last time Wolfowitz was in a position if influence. Because that was expressly cited as the reason Iraq was invaded and North Korea not then, by Wolfowitz. GWBush-era foreign policy had the kind of focus on domestic economic interests that Trump pretends to have, the main difference is that it had some substantive coherence rather than focus only as a PR veneer over a group of incompetently managed competing interests seeking personal advantage. That's not to say the say the execution of Bush foreign policy wasn't grossly incompetent, but and it's formulation wasn't grossly immoral, to be sure. Now, Venezuela might be a target of active intervention if the Bush team were still in charge.
- ethbro 8y ago
  Venezuela has generally been in crisis in the 20th (and start of the 21st century). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_crisis_(disambiguation) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_crisis_(disambigu... If the US hadn't brokered a debt repayment deal by threatening naval force against Britain, Germany, and Italy's blockade in 1903, there would likely still be a European-controlled port in Venezuela.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Invade to spend trillions more on that country? No thanks. Gone are the "to the winner go the spoils" days. Frankly, I think we're blamed for the deaths and mess in Iraq and maybe Libya (not invaded but...). Democracy is great, in theory, in reality they have seen their lives turned upside down.

drb91 8y ago
It all depends on perspective. If you’re friends with a bunch of defense contractors, war could spell good times for you. Hanging out around DC gives me the impression there are quite a few defense contractors.