3 ms·

Ryan McBeth says existence of a "military industrial complex" is false and has not been true since 1993. I like how he notes Procter & Gamble makes more revenue

by relwin 2y ago

Ryan McBeth says existence of a "military industrial complex" is false and has not been true since 1993. I like how he notes Procter & Gamble makes more revenue than the top 5 defense contractors combined. https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?si=p3Ks7oueygVe3Tvb https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?si=p3Ks7oueygVe3Tvb

stracer 2y ago
If Ryan McBeth defines MIC as just the defense companies, or its existence being conditioned on these companies having greater official revenues than Procter & Gamble, then he either misunderstands the concept, or he is (why?) trying to spread some weak argument for an idea that U.S. does not have an MIC, which is quite comical. MIC is not just the defense companies, read the name again - it' the complex made of industry and the military. And Eisenhower's point in warning against it is not about revenue of the industry part, but about influence of the whole complex on major decisions. In 1990's there was a short dip in funding, but since 2000's, its growth caught back on, and it's getting close to a trillion dollars a year. That much money chases a lot of constituency and a lot of power. Millions of people are dependent on it.
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  To you is it just the industrial complex?
  - stracer 2y ago
    Why would you ask that? MIC = Military Industrial Complex. The complex is made of both the industry and the military.
    - Schiendelman 2y ago
      I ask that because you bring up Procter & Gamble, and imply the same concept exists everywhere, not just military companies.
      - stracer 2y ago
        > you bring up Procter & Gamble, No, relwin brought it up, and I ridiculed the criterion. I don't get your point at all, sorry.
echoangle 2y ago
I didn’t watch the video but Lockheed Martin has 60 billion revenue per year from defense contracts, PG has 80 or so? Northrop has 30 so these two are already over PG. Or am I missing something?
- phonon 2y ago
  In the video he specifies profits. https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?t=988 https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?t=988
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    I’d rather have a cost plus contract with Uncle Sam than sell consumer staples for sub 10% net margin, much lower risk.

by relwin 2y ago

stracer 2y ago

If Ryan McBeth defines MIC as just the defense companies, or its existence being conditioned on these companies having greater official revenues than Procter & Gamble, then he either misunderstands the concept, or he is (why?) trying to spread some weak argument for an idea that U.S. does not have an MIC, which is quite comical. MIC is not just the defense companies, read the name again - it' the complex made of industry and the military. And Eisenhower's point in warning against it is not about revenue of the industry part, but about influence of the whole complex on major decisions. In 1990's there was a short dip in funding, but since 2000's, its growth caught back on, and it's getting close to a trillion dollars a year. That much money chases a lot of constituency and a lot of power. Millions of people are dependent on it.

Schiendelman 2y ago
To you is it just the industrial complex?
- stracer 2y ago
  Why would you ask that? MIC = Military Industrial Complex. The complex is made of both the industry and the military.
  - Schiendelman 2y ago
    I ask that because you bring up Procter & Gamble, and imply the same concept exists everywhere, not just military companies.
    - stracer 2y ago
      > you bring up Procter & Gamble, No, relwin brought it up, and I ridiculed the criterion. I don't get your point at all, sorry.

echoangle 2y ago

I didn’t watch the video but Lockheed Martin has 60 billion revenue per year from defense contracts, PG has 80 or so? Northrop has 30 so these two are already over PG. Or am I missing something?

phonon 2y ago
In the video he specifies profits. https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?t=988 https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?t=988
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  I’d rather have a cost plus contract with Uncle Sam than sell consumer staples for sub 10% net margin, much lower risk.