4 ms·
This 40% increase only leads up to a 1.5% GDP being used on defense, well under many other countries
by PaywallBuster 6y ago
This 40% increase only leads up to a 1.5% GDP being used on defense, well under many other countries
- RedShift1 6y agoWhy is military spending always defined as relative to GDP and not to total tax income, where the actual money is coming from?
- momokoko 6y agoBecause there is no such thing as “actual money” in countries that have fiat currency. So it wouldn’t actually make any sense to do that.
- dingle_thunk 6y agoTaxation policy can be changed. As a strategic matter, during wartime, the economic output of the entire country can be redirected to war efforts. Relative economic output of different forces is a major determining factor in war outcomes. The percentage of GDP during peace-time serves as an indicator of readiness for war. It is worth noting that Sweden staved off the USSR during the cold war with this very cleverly designed tank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSNNNMYmTKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSNNNMYmTKQ
- m_eiman 6y ago” It is worth noting that Sweden only managed to stave off the USSR thanks to their preparedness, and this very cleverly designed tank” You probably mean the cold war, not ww2? Sweden didn’t (directly) fight the USSR during ww2, and was famously unprepared at the start of the war.
- dingle_thunk 6y agoThanks. Amended my comment there, knew something about it felt off. Mostly just wanted to point out a cool and important tank :)
- Kinrany 6y agoNot all economic output can be used by the military, right?
- dingle_thunk 6y agoNo, obviously. But everything can be commandeered and coordinated by defense during a war effort.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> Taxation policy can be changed. > As a strategic matter, during wartime, the economic output of the entire country can be redirected to war efforts. GDP can also be changed via policy. And your suggestion has Laffer curve problems. Redirecting the entire output of the country into a war effort will sharply reduce the output of the country.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- goatinaboat 6y agoWhy is military spending always defined as relative to GDP and not to total tax income, where the actual money is coming from? Because that’s how NATO defines it, such that each member makes a proportional contribution. It would be silly to expect say Estonia to match Germany in real terms, but it’s reasonable to expect Germany to match say Poland in relative terms. (Yes I know Sweden is not a NATO member but most European countries are so it makes sense to compare like with like)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- LatteLazy 6y agoFor a developed nation with a big gdp and no major conflicts on their doorstep, that is big.