4 ms·

While the first graph does adjust for inflation (i.e., all years are in 2020 inflation-adjusted USD), it seems that it doesn't account for global wealth increas

by sshine 5y ago

While the first graph does adjust for inflation (i.e., all years are in 2020 inflation-adjusted USD), it seems that it doesn't account for global wealth increase, i.e. while the absolute amount of money spent on war is greater than ever, so is our absolute wealth. I'm not an economist, but wouldn't it make sense to compare military spending over gdp, inflation-adjusted? Or put simpler: I'm sure there was a time in history where a relatively large amount of our total wealth was spent on war, because we generally didn't have much.

arcticbull 5y ago
Yes, like say, World War 1 and 2.
sbelskie 5y ago
This graph only goes back to 2000 but even on that timescale current military spending is lower than past peaks: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Well, 2009 was when the bulk of the impact from the financial crisis hit world GDP so the peak is mostly reflecting that GDP contracted while military spending was mainly flat. You can compare the percentage of GDP figure to this one showing military spending as percentage of all government spending, where it looks like we're spending less and less on weapons: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.ZS So while total dollar amount is maybe a coarse measure, the GDP or the fraction worldwide government spending are so contingent on the details of literally every other human activity as to unusable for quick observations.
  - stingraycharles 5y ago
    This is an excellent point! As someone who’s totally not a data scientist, what approach would you take to counter this? Assuming military budget planning has a window of a few years, would a moving average of GDP be an appropriate solution? Or am I thinking too simplistic?
    - KolenCh 5y ago
      Not directly addressing this, but perhaps the point is not to create a model to address every known limitations. No models are perfect. Points are made based on a model, and a limitation/assumption is pointed out. You need to judge given the assumption/limitation if the message made still some-what make sense. I mean something X being highest right now is a pretty clear statement, it is either true or false, if X is well defined. But then your problem is you want to have Z instead, which hopefully is accounted for every other effect except for the factor you want to measure, such as inflation, GDP, etc. But the more you add, you either makes your Z definition sensitive to these other factors you’re not interested in (such as a peak comes from the denominator, not the numerator), or we really admit we can’t calculate Z for sure, and is now a statistical model (any kind of smoothing including the MA you mentioned is to admit we don’t know the true state but can only observe it with noise.) Now the statement of “Z is highest now” is no longer a true or false statement, but a probabilistic one. Certainly then P(Z is highest) = 60% or so wouldn’t make much of a headline and can be confusing. So my point was rather than trying to create a perfect model (which you can’t, and what you learn from it won’t be clear as well), sometimes just deal with the statement and methodology and judge if it is a clickbait or has some merit of truth there.
zivkovicp 5y ago
I agree and think it would be more useful if it was expressed as a percentage of global GDP instead.
throwaway4good 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
dragontamer 5y ago
Does inflation matter? We are largely talking about bombs and bullets here. Yes, smarter and smarter bombs but bombs nonetheless. I feel like the proper comparison point is tons of explosives. And remember: every proximity fuse antiair bullet has a vacuum tube and mini-radar in it to run the proximity fuse logic (if close to enemy, then explode). Modern weapons are smarter than that, but WW2 era weapons were still quite smart.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Warfare is much more than explosives. It’s people, equipment, information, transportation, logistics, and a lot more.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Sure, but military spending isn't necessarily war-making. Case in point: the biggest expenditure of the US Military is... Healthcare, the Veteran's Affair's department. The next biggest expenditures are Research and Development (which includes DARPA-funded projects. Technically defense, but I don't think anyone would call the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge Darpa Network Challenge a "wargame") By just looking at military spending per department, you over-estimate the amount of money spent on warmaking. ------ So defense-spending is one metric (too much money allocated), and maybe "tons of explosives" is too little. USA didn't really have that many casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan (it wasn't like Vietnam or Korea where huge amounts of injured soldiers existed). As such, the VA-department is largely handling things like COVID19, diabetes, and other "typical" ailments. While technically "department of defense" funds, I don't think it really counts as "military expenditure", not in the way the article is discussing anyway.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kube-system 5y ago
      That’s kind of where I was going with “people”, but certainly there are many other larger costs than explosives. Labor is the largest expense for most organizations and the DoD is no exception. They are, after all, the worlds largest employer.
fasteddie31003 5y ago
Percent of GDP is a much better metric.
- airstrike 5y ago
  It is, but it doesn't make headlines...
- E4YomzYIN5YEBKe 5y ago
  Does the cost of defending a country increase linearly with GDP? Do linear increases in military spending result in a linear increase in security?
bannedbybros 5y ago
starwind 5y ago
In the post-WW2 era, military spending peaked in the 1980s, and it's been (mostly) declining ever since as a percentage of global gdp

by sshine 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

Yes, like say, World War 1 and 2.

sbelskie 5y ago

This graph only goes back to 2000 but even on that timescale current military spending is lower than past peaks: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Well, 2009 was when the bulk of the impact from the financial crisis hit world GDP so the peak is mostly reflecting that GDP contracted while military spending was mainly flat. You can compare the percentage of GDP figure to this one showing military spending as percentage of all government spending, where it looks like we're spending less and less on weapons: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.ZS So while total dollar amount is maybe a coarse measure, the GDP or the fraction worldwide government spending are so contingent on the details of literally every other human activity as to unusable for quick observations.
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  This is an excellent point! As someone who’s totally not a data scientist, what approach would you take to counter this? Assuming military budget planning has a window of a few years, would a moving average of GDP be an appropriate solution? Or am I thinking too simplistic?
  - KolenCh 5y ago
    Not directly addressing this, but perhaps the point is not to create a model to address every known limitations. No models are perfect. Points are made based on a model, and a limitation/assumption is pointed out. You need to judge given the assumption/limitation if the message made still some-what make sense. I mean something X being highest right now is a pretty clear statement, it is either true or false, if X is well defined. But then your problem is you want to have Z instead, which hopefully is accounted for every other effect except for the factor you want to measure, such as inflation, GDP, etc. But the more you add, you either makes your Z definition sensitive to these other factors you’re not interested in (such as a peak comes from the denominator, not the numerator), or we really admit we can’t calculate Z for sure, and is now a statistical model (any kind of smoothing including the MA you mentioned is to admit we don’t know the true state but can only observe it with noise.) Now the statement of “Z is highest now” is no longer a true or false statement, but a probabilistic one. Certainly then P(Z is highest) = 60% or so wouldn’t make much of a headline and can be confusing. So my point was rather than trying to create a perfect model (which you can’t, and what you learn from it won’t be clear as well), sometimes just deal with the statement and methodology and judge if it is a clickbait or has some merit of truth there.

zivkovicp 5y ago

I agree and think it would be more useful if it was expressed as a percentage of global GDP instead.

throwaway4good 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

dragontamer 5y ago

Does inflation matter? We are largely talking about bombs and bullets here. Yes, smarter and smarter bombs but bombs nonetheless. I feel like the proper comparison point is tons of explosives. And remember: every proximity fuse antiair bullet has a vacuum tube and mini-radar in it to run the proximity fuse logic (if close to enemy, then explode). Modern weapons are smarter than that, but WW2 era weapons were still quite smart.

kube-system 5y ago
Warfare is much more than explosives. It’s people, equipment, information, transportation, logistics, and a lot more.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Sure, but military spending isn't necessarily war-making. Case in point: the biggest expenditure of the US Military is... Healthcare, the Veteran's Affair's department. The next biggest expenditures are Research and Development (which includes DARPA-funded projects. Technically defense, but I don't think anyone would call the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge Darpa Network Challenge a "wargame") By just looking at military spending per department, you over-estimate the amount of money spent on warmaking. ------ So defense-spending is one metric (too much money allocated), and maybe "tons of explosives" is too little. USA didn't really have that many casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan (it wasn't like Vietnam or Korea where huge amounts of injured soldiers existed). As such, the VA-department is largely handling things like COVID19, diabetes, and other "typical" ailments. While technically "department of defense" funds, I don't think it really counts as "military expenditure", not in the way the article is discussing anyway.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kube-system 5y ago
    That’s kind of where I was going with “people”, but certainly there are many other larger costs than explosives. Labor is the largest expense for most organizations and the DoD is no exception. They are, after all, the worlds largest employer.

fasteddie31003 5y ago

Percent of GDP is a much better metric.

airstrike 5y ago
It is, but it doesn't make headlines...
E4YomzYIN5YEBKe 5y ago
Does the cost of defending a country increase linearly with GDP? Do linear increases in military spending result in a linear increase in security?

bannedbybros 5y ago

starwind 5y ago

In the post-WW2 era, military spending peaked in the 1980s, and it's been (mostly) declining ever since as a percentage of global gdp