3 ms·

All the "research" there says is that they couldn't find a GDP correlation between countries that spend 1.8% on defense and ones that spend 2.4% on defense. The

All the "research" there says is that they couldn't find a GDP correlation between countries that spend 1.8% on defense and ones that spend 2.4% on defense. There are a hundred million billion factors that go into what your GDP growth looks like. It seems obvious to me without that study that defense spending would not be the deciding factor. You cannot examine the what the world would look like if there was no military spending; that's a counterfactual. But we know from essential economic science that spending money on non-productive activity does not serve to increase the general economic welfare. In the US alone there are 2 million people serving in the military. Many are endlessly training for a war that most likely will never take place, others are glorified janitors, and the rest are in administration running the training and janitorial work. Imagine if the labor productivity of 2 million people were put to better use. Building houses and products and services that we all need and enjoy rather than mucking about in a field somewhere with $12000 of equipment on their back. (The division of labor is a major argument in economic circles against mandatory conscription) Of course, militaries are important. The events in Ukraine prove this. But I don't think there is any point in trying to argue that they are good or irrelevant to the economy.

gruez 5y ago
>You cannot examine the what the world would look like if there was no military spending; that's a counterfactual. But we know from essential economic science that spending money on non-productive activity does not serve to increase the general economic welfare Right, but it's not exactly "non-productive", from the article: > One way in which defence spending might be said to boost the economy is as a jobs programme. [...] > Defence spending may deliver better returns as an undeclared form of industrial policy. [...] On average, they found that a 10% increase in government-financed R&D leads to a 5% increase in privately financed R&D in the targeted firm or industry. Moreover, there are knock-on benefits for productivity.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Jobs programs are not net boosters to the economy. There is a short anecdote of this, when a famed economist visited China in the 1970s. He was shown a work site where hundreds of men were digging with shovels. He asked why there were so many shovels, but no machines. The party member looked at him and said, "Oh, this is not a construction project, it's a jobs program". The economist promptly replied, "In that case, you should take away the shovels and give them spoons!". The economic situation in that instance would be improved if the workforce was cut in half and they used steam shovels, not if they paid wages for nothing of value in return. And yes, it's true the military research provides benefits and applications outside the military, (GPS for instance), but if your goal is R&D, it's far more efficient to invest in R&D for R&D's sake, not retroactively justify massive military excess because of knock-on effects.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Imagine a jobs program that instead of pissing away money building rifles and tanks, we spent that money and labor building high speed rail, more light rail in cities, solar panels, wind turbines, e-bikes, electric cars, hybrid transit busses. We spent two trillion dollars in Afghanistan. Imagine what that could have done for our country's energy and transportation infrastructure.

gruez 5y ago

>You cannot examine the what the world would look like if there was no military spending; that's a counterfactual. But we know from essential economic science that spending money on non-productive activity does not serve to increase the general economic welfare Right, but it's not exactly "non-productive", from the article: > One way in which defence spending might be said to boost the economy is as a jobs programme. [...] > Defence spending may deliver better returns as an undeclared form of industrial policy. [...] On average, they found that a 10% increase in government-financed R&D leads to a 5% increase in privately financed R&D in the targeted firm or industry. Moreover, there are knock-on benefits for productivity.

missedthecue 5y ago
Jobs programs are not net boosters to the economy. There is a short anecdote of this, when a famed economist visited China in the 1970s. He was shown a work site where hundreds of men were digging with shovels. He asked why there were so many shovels, but no machines. The party member looked at him and said, "Oh, this is not a construction project, it's a jobs program". The economist promptly replied, "In that case, you should take away the shovels and give them spoons!". The economic situation in that instance would be improved if the workforce was cut in half and they used steam shovels, not if they paid wages for nothing of value in return. And yes, it's true the military research provides benefits and applications outside the military, (GPS for instance), but if your goal is R&D, it's far more efficient to invest in R&D for R&D's sake, not retroactively justify massive military excess because of knock-on effects.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Imagine a jobs program that instead of pissing away money building rifles and tanks, we spent that money and labor building high speed rail, more light rail in cities, solar panels, wind turbines, e-bikes, electric cars, hybrid transit busses. We spent two trillion dollars in Afghanistan. Imagine what that could have done for our country's energy and transportation infrastructure.