3 ms·

There's a nuanced point here that looking at GDP % vs inflation adjusted yields different results depending on the range. For example, from 1982-1990, military

There's a nuanced point here that looking at GDP % vs inflation adjusted yields different results depending on the range. For example, from 1982-1990, military spending was up, even after adjusting for inflation. It was actually 1990-2000 where military spending actually decreased, both before and after adjusting for inflation. Compare that to GDP % which would indicate a steady decline in spending. So now we very much do have to examine GDP here in order to look at the argument specifics if we care about 1982-1990. With that said, the cold war ended around 1991, so the military stagnation is more or less in line with the cold war ending. The context missing on the original claim is simply that spending shot right back up once American mucked up and got itself stuck in the middle east, being involved in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. But hey, none of this relates to the original post at all really - that claim was not actually doing any lifting in the original argument other than to serve as a light illustration of how the military spending is never cut in a significant way, and that is generally true save a small exception from 2011-2015. The best that can happen is an effective slow cut through stagnation. And all of THAT is just to say that the government gets pushback when trying to walk back policies. So did it ever really matter how the cold war affected spending here? What's the point of calling this super nuance out?

enkid 5y ago
This is the only data point the poster had which supported their argument and it was factually incorrect, whether you look at inflation adjusted or as a percentage of GDP. Now, whether to use inflation adjusted or as a percentage of GDP is a valid argument, but doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong, and I don't think this is the forum where it really is going to get resolved.
- adjkant 5y ago
  > but doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, I think you're missing the point. The very specific, non relevant way you interpreted the claim is factually wrong. To me, the claim read as: > the military spending is never cut in a significant way Which again, at an absolute level, is generally true when looking at inflation adjusted spending. Within context, absolute is relevant here though as this is about government process. The whole context makes this claim incredibly tangential to the whole point, which more or less boils down to "government has a lot of inertia". > doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, did it ever really matter how the cold war affected spending here? What's the point of calling this super nuance out? My point is not to argue about 1990-2000 military spending and the measures of it. I'm calling this out to say "arguing over small irrelevant details to an argument is not very productive if you care about the real topic at hand". Are you trying to make this case because you believe that the government does not have a lot of inertia when it comes to these things? Great, then make that case instead of this rabbit hole. Or is this rabbit hole just about the non relevant fact itself?
  - enkid 5y ago
    Your missing why I'm making my comment. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm arguing against making any conclusions based on what the original poster said, because the only factual evidence they present is at the very least questionable. I'm not making a positive assertion that government inertia is not a problem, simply that the above post does not provide sufficient evidence that it is a problem.

enkid 5y ago

This is the only data point the poster had which supported their argument and it was factually incorrect, whether you look at inflation adjusted or as a percentage of GDP. Now, whether to use inflation adjusted or as a percentage of GDP is a valid argument, but doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong, and I don't think this is the forum where it really is going to get resolved.

adjkant 5y ago
> but doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, I think you're missing the point. The very specific, non relevant way you interpreted the claim is factually wrong. To me, the claim read as: > the military spending is never cut in a significant way Which again, at an absolute level, is generally true when looking at inflation adjusted spending. Within context, absolute is relevant here though as this is about government process. The whole context makes this claim incredibly tangential to the whole point, which more or less boils down to "government has a lot of inertia". > doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, did it ever really matter how the cold war affected spending here? What's the point of calling this super nuance out? My point is not to argue about 1990-2000 military spending and the measures of it. I'm calling this out to say "arguing over small irrelevant details to an argument is not very productive if you care about the real topic at hand". Are you trying to make this case because you believe that the government does not have a lot of inertia when it comes to these things? Great, then make that case instead of this rabbit hole. Or is this rabbit hole just about the non relevant fact itself?
- enkid 5y ago
  Your missing why I'm making my comment. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm arguing against making any conclusions based on what the original poster said, because the only factual evidence they present is at the very least questionable. I'm not making a positive assertion that government inertia is not a problem, simply that the above post does not provide sufficient evidence that it is a problem.