3 ms·

I think you and OP are being pedantic by not considering the invaluable data, intelligence, and geopolitical impacts, all of which play an indisputable role in

I think you and OP are being pedantic by not considering the invaluable data, intelligence, and geopolitical impacts, all of which play an indisputable role in fueling the American economy and keeping that economy central to the global economy in and a rule-making position. A dollar spent on defense gets a bigger return than virtually any place you could take that dollar from, and some of the gains form that dollar are literally irreplaceable.

crazygringo 3y ago
No, you're just having a totally different conversation. I already said there are absolutely ancillary benefits. But that doesn't mean it's not costing money. It's costing a lot of money! The article is trying to make the point that the money is just coming back to the American economy and therefore, in a sense, isn't "costing" us. But that's false. We are spending real money. Is the money worth it to affect the war effort? Of course. But it's real money being spent. It's not "coming back to us".
- standardUser 3y ago
  As I've restated several different ways, the economic gains from arms transfers are very likely to be a net gain for the US economy. It may not show up neatly on a P+L statement, but the magnitude of the potential gains vastly outweighs any trade-offs. Here is a chart showing US-Ukrainian trade before the invasion: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/country-papers/2618-2019-statistical-analysis-of-u-s-trade-with-ukraine/file https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/country-papers/2618-2019-s... Ukraine was a growing trade partner with a trade balance that benefited the US and all those numbers go to 0 and stay there if it become a Russian puppet state. That's just one of many examples of how these arms transfers can provide a real, material gain to the US economy, which, as I have stated, cannot be replicated by spending money in any other way. It's not some fluffy "ancillary" benefit.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    That's all great, maybe. We can certainly hope so. But that's not what the article is arguing, and that's not what I'm arguing against. Like I said, you're having a totally separate conversation. But you're framing it as some kind of rebuttal to what I'm saying. And it's just not.

crazygringo 3y ago

No, you're just having a totally different conversation. I already said there are absolutely ancillary benefits. But that doesn't mean it's not costing money. It's costing a lot of money! The article is trying to make the point that the money is just coming back to the American economy and therefore, in a sense, isn't "costing" us. But that's false. We are spending real money. Is the money worth it to affect the war effort? Of course. But it's real money being spent. It's not "coming back to us".

standardUser 3y ago
As I've restated several different ways, the economic gains from arms transfers are very likely to be a net gain for the US economy. It may not show up neatly on a P+L statement, but the magnitude of the potential gains vastly outweighs any trade-offs. Here is a chart showing US-Ukrainian trade before the invasion: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/country-papers/2618-2019-statistical-analysis-of-u-s-trade-with-ukraine/file https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/country-papers/2618-2019-s... Ukraine was a growing trade partner with a trade balance that benefited the US and all those numbers go to 0 and stay there if it become a Russian puppet state. That's just one of many examples of how these arms transfers can provide a real, material gain to the US economy, which, as I have stated, cannot be replicated by spending money in any other way. It's not some fluffy "ancillary" benefit.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  That's all great, maybe. We can certainly hope so. But that's not what the article is arguing, and that's not what I'm arguing against. Like I said, you're having a totally separate conversation. But you're framing it as some kind of rebuttal to what I'm saying. And it's just not.