Re:World military expenditure passes $2T for first time
by missedthecue on Tuesday April 26, 2022 @11:15AM
(#31168506)
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.
Re:World military expenditure passes $2T for first time
by KennyBlanken on Tuesday April 26, 2022 @01:02PM
(#31169996)
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.
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.