6 ms·

War is immensely profitable today. For the contractors and civilian service-providers who live off the military-industrial complex. It's just that the coffers

War is immensely profitable today. For the contractors and civilian service-providers who live off the military-industrial complex. It's just that the coffers they're plundering are our national budget and future debt, rather than some combatant nation.

pg 18y ago
As a way of funneling public money to one's supporters, starting a war is much more work than the usual peacetime appropriations route. For defense contractors, an arms race is just as good as an actual war.
- prospero 18y ago
  I'd argue that peacetime appropriations and a true arms race are separated by an order of magnitude. And now that Russia's gone and China's at least a decade out, a straightforward war's the only game in town.
  - pg 18y ago
    You underestimate the military-industrial complex. All you need to drive appropriations is some form of fear. Iran or China or "terrorists" will do fine. In some cases unsophisticated opponents are better. If eggheads argue your expensive missile-defense shield won't work, you can argue that it will against crappy missiles launched by Iran.
    - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
      War profiteering blows away peacetime defense systems. The post 2001 defense spending boom has dwarfed the cold war at minting billionaires. Vietnam also produced stupendous profits that were not matched by the 80s spending surge.
      - hugh 18y ago
        The post 2001 defense spending boom has dwarfed the cold war at minting billionaires. Really? I haven't heard of that many people becoming billionaires off the defense industry, given that it's dominated by giant decades-old conglomerates. But then again, maybe I haven't been paying attention. Got some names for me?
        niels_olson 18y ago
        Most are probably not direct profiteers, like CEOs, they're mainly shareholders. But I'm sitting at Bethesda Naval Hospital right now, a nearly empty hospital with entirely too many staff, watching billion dollar buildings be built for patients that will never come (thanks to the admittedly much more humane TriCare system that allows retirees and dependents to be treated in their hometown civilian facilities). I have spent the last month learning about the desperately failed suite of electronic medical record apps that DoD has paid Lockheed Martin $20 billion dollars to develop (they fail on so many levels I don't know where to begin, just search for AHLTA).
        hugh 18y ago
        Huh? That seems pretty irrelevant to my question.
        niels_olson 18y ago
        Relevance to your question: providing supporting evidence. Citing two specific examples of DoD spending that appear to out of proportion to either need or benefit, but which sent billions to the conglomerates you mention. Both examples based on personal experience.
        pmorici 18y ago
        Large defense contractors are notorious for buying up small business with a majority stake held by a minority female Alaskin sled dog racer.
    - prospero 18y ago
      I looked up US defense spending since WWII, adjusted for inflation: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html One the one hand, you're right in that the spending never really dips below $250 billion, except from 1945-1950. On the other hand, defense spending has doubled in recent years, and there is noticeable growth historically whenever we actually used our military. War isn't necessary for the military-industrial complex to get rich, but it helps. I don't think the logistical complications of war are a very meaningful deterrence for the people who stand to profit from it.
      - asdflkj 18y ago
        Defense spending has increased (not really doubled, though, according to those numbers), but much of that increase was poured down the drain actually making the war happen. Defense contractors' profits probably don't scale linearly with defense spending in times of war.
        prospero 18y ago
        At the bottom it says that these figures don't include the costs for the day-to-day expenses of Iraq or Afghanistan. Those costs, if my cursory Google search is to be believed, are around $9 billion a month. All told, that's about $600 billion a year, or twice the "peacetime" average of $300 billion.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  You're generally correct, but you're conflating different parties. Contractors in war time are very different than the companies that build war tech. Haliburton makes money by managing thousands of people in Iraq. Boeing makes money in building a new plane. The latter is easy to get money for in peace time.
  - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
    The major defense contractors all serve in the field. Boeing has loads of people in Iraq. There's no conflation. All the big defense tech players have seen big increases in profitability since the war.
gills 18y ago
It is overwhelmingly unproductive profit. Which really isn't profit in the long run. A few great boosts to our general standard of living have come from military research during wars and arms races, but most of the money is spent foolishly. Eventually everyone pays the piper for that kind of mis-allocation, so in a way it is anti-profit.
- gaius 18y ago
  Well, yes and no. Has anyone ever added up radar, jet engines, satellite communications (etc etc etc - all the technologies rooted in military applications) and is it more or less than the defence budget?
netcan 18y ago
War is immensely profitable today. For the contractors and civilian service-providers who live off the military-industrial complex. That is besides the point made here. War may be good for some parties. I am sure that if we hit a depression, that will also benefit certain parties. The point is that for either side, it is a negative sum game. So the idea is that to the extent that the macro effect is represented in decision making, wars shouldn't happen. The military-industrial complex may be an example of a failure in representing the public good. In contrast, War may have been for for Rome under Ceasar or Persia under Darios. The second point is that economic warfare might be more efficient then actual warfare.

pg 18y ago

As a way of funneling public money to one's supporters, starting a war is much more work than the usual peacetime appropriations route. For defense contractors, an arms race is just as good as an actual war.

prospero 18y ago
I'd argue that peacetime appropriations and a true arms race are separated by an order of magnitude. And now that Russia's gone and China's at least a decade out, a straightforward war's the only game in town.
- pg 18y ago
  You underestimate the military-industrial complex. All you need to drive appropriations is some form of fear. Iran or China or "terrorists" will do fine. In some cases unsophisticated opponents are better. If eggheads argue your expensive missile-defense shield won't work, you can argue that it will against crappy missiles launched by Iran.
  - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
    War profiteering blows away peacetime defense systems. The post 2001 defense spending boom has dwarfed the cold war at minting billionaires. Vietnam also produced stupendous profits that were not matched by the 80s spending surge.
    - hugh 18y ago
      The post 2001 defense spending boom has dwarfed the cold war at minting billionaires. Really? I haven't heard of that many people becoming billionaires off the defense industry, given that it's dominated by giant decades-old conglomerates. But then again, maybe I haven't been paying attention. Got some names for me?
      - niels_olson 18y ago
        Most are probably not direct profiteers, like CEOs, they're mainly shareholders. But I'm sitting at Bethesda Naval Hospital right now, a nearly empty hospital with entirely too many staff, watching billion dollar buildings be built for patients that will never come (thanks to the admittedly much more humane TriCare system that allows retirees and dependents to be treated in their hometown civilian facilities). I have spent the last month learning about the desperately failed suite of electronic medical record apps that DoD has paid Lockheed Martin $20 billion dollars to develop (they fail on so many levels I don't know where to begin, just search for AHLTA).
        hugh 18y ago
        Huh? That seems pretty irrelevant to my question.
        niels_olson 18y ago
        Relevance to your question: providing supporting evidence. Citing two specific examples of DoD spending that appear to out of proportion to either need or benefit, but which sent billions to the conglomerates you mention. Both examples based on personal experience.
      - pmorici 18y ago
        Large defense contractors are notorious for buying up small business with a majority stake held by a minority female Alaskin sled dog racer.
  - prospero 18y ago
    I looked up US defense spending since WWII, adjusted for inflation: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html One the one hand, you're right in that the spending never really dips below $250 billion, except from 1945-1950. On the other hand, defense spending has doubled in recent years, and there is noticeable growth historically whenever we actually used our military. War isn't necessary for the military-industrial complex to get rich, but it helps. I don't think the logistical complications of war are a very meaningful deterrence for the people who stand to profit from it.
    - asdflkj 18y ago
      Defense spending has increased (not really doubled, though, according to those numbers), but much of that increase was poured down the drain actually making the war happen. Defense contractors' profits probably don't scale linearly with defense spending in times of war.
      - prospero 18y ago
        At the bottom it says that these figures don't include the costs for the day-to-day expenses of Iraq or Afghanistan. Those costs, if my cursory Google search is to be believed, are around $9 billion a month. All told, that's about $600 billion a year, or twice the "peacetime" average of $300 billion.
ivankirigin 18y ago
You're generally correct, but you're conflating different parties. Contractors in war time are very different than the companies that build war tech. Haliburton makes money by managing thousands of people in Iraq. Boeing makes money in building a new plane. The latter is easy to get money for in peace time.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  The major defense contractors all serve in the field. Boeing has loads of people in Iraq. There's no conflation. All the big defense tech players have seen big increases in profitability since the war.

gills 18y ago

It is overwhelmingly unproductive profit. Which really isn't profit in the long run. A few great boosts to our general standard of living have come from military research during wars and arms races, but most of the money is spent foolishly. Eventually everyone pays the piper for that kind of mis-allocation, so in a way it is anti-profit.

gaius 18y ago
Well, yes and no. Has anyone ever added up radar, jet engines, satellite communications (etc etc etc - all the technologies rooted in military applications) and is it more or less than the defence budget?

netcan 18y ago

War is immensely profitable today. For the contractors and civilian service-providers who live off the military-industrial complex. That is besides the point made here. War may be good for some parties. I am sure that if we hit a depression, that will also benefit certain parties. The point is that for either side, it is a negative sum game. So the idea is that to the extent that the macro effect is represented in decision making, wars shouldn't happen. The military-industrial complex may be an example of a failure in representing the public good. In contrast, War may have been for for Rome under Ceasar or Persia under Darios. The second point is that economic warfare might be more efficient then actual warfare.