2 ms·

> I don't think percent of GDP is a meaningful metric. Why not? I think it's close to the only useful metric across time. > The distinction between mandatory

by eru 1y ago

> I don't think percent of GDP is a meaningful metric. Why not? I think it's close to the only useful metric across time. > The distinction between mandatory and discretionary isn't weird - mandatory is payments that the government is legally required to make, discretionary is what they have the choice of spending. Laws aren't god given. They can be changed. The political processes are slightly different, but if the voters want it, they can get it. > Sovereign wealth funds of the sort you're alluding to have a problem - [...] I'm not alluding to any sovereign wealth funds. What makes you think so? I suggested to get pension systems out of the hands of government, not into them.

somenameforme 1y ago
A fully funded pension system that invests globally outside the government's balance sheet is essentially exactly what a sovereign wealth fund is. Even when it is managed privately (as the Alaska fund is) the government has regulatory control of the fund, which is where the looting is, probably unavoidably, introduced. As for money vs GDP, our discussion on mandatory vs discretionary spending is already one reason why $$$ is far more informative. Dollars can, after inflation, be compared and paint a relatively clear picture. Percent of some other metric, which has often changed wildly over time, is instead more likely just to mislead. So for instance we now spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on the war machine than we did during the Cold War when we were facing a very viable threat of nuclear annihilation. That's an extremely valuable metric that does mean a lot. Why are we spending so much on war? The fantasy about it creating some sort of unstoppable war machine has clearly been clearly shattered. It's not even clear that would have been desirable if true. One thing this administration got completely right was renaming the Department of Defense to its old moniker of Depart of War, because that is what it really is. This reality is completely muddled if you start trying to frame things as percent of some other metric, be that budget, GDP, or whatever else.

by eru 1y ago

somenameforme 1y ago

A fully funded pension system that invests globally outside the government's balance sheet is essentially exactly what a sovereign wealth fund is. Even when it is managed privately (as the Alaska fund is) the government has regulatory control of the fund, which is where the looting is, probably unavoidably, introduced. As for money vs GDP, our discussion on mandatory vs discretionary spending is already one reason why $$$ is far more informative. Dollars can, after inflation, be compared and paint a relatively clear picture. Percent of some other metric, which has often changed wildly over time, is instead more likely just to mislead. So for instance we now spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on the war machine than we did during the Cold War when we were facing a very viable threat of nuclear annihilation. That's an extremely valuable metric that does mean a lot. Why are we spending so much on war? The fantasy about it creating some sort of unstoppable war machine has clearly been clearly shattered. It's not even clear that would have been desirable if true. One thing this administration got completely right was renaming the Department of Defense to its old moniker of Depart of War, because that is what it really is. This reality is completely muddled if you start trying to frame things as percent of some other metric, be that budget, GDP, or whatever else.