NationStates Jolt Archive

The United States has a military budget of almost $400 billion ($399.1 billion to be exact). Why? Who is the US in an arms race with? The second biggest spender in military stuff is Russia with $65 billion. The United States and especially those that continue to advocate a higher military budget are idiots.

Cut the budget to about $100 billion or less and use that $300 billion to fund a universal health care, improve education, find a cure for aids, cancer, and other deadly diseases, etc. Why is this country so bent on finding better ways to kill other people? That's stupid. You should be saving lifes not taking them away. You could be helping to feed children in Africa, provide AIDs medicine to them, etc. But nooo. You've got to find better and new ways to kill people more "efficently".

The budget is continuing the expand. Bush's budget from 03-09:

http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/topline.cfm

FY03 - $382.2 billion
FY04 - $399.1 billion
FY05 - $419.6 billion
FY06 - $439.7 billion
FY07 - $460 billion
FY08 - $480.4 billion
FY09 - $502.7 billion

Total - $2,701.5 trillion

wtf? Retards.

Who agrees with me?

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

Yes, of course. So, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, etc. all of whom have less than $50 billion in their military have a "huge disaster" for an economy because they spend little?

Let's buy more bullets, tanks, bombs, aircraft, equipment, etc. so we can go kill more people.

You've missed the point entirely. :roll:

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

Yes, of course. So, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, etc. all of whom have less than $50 billion in their military have a "huge disaster" for an economy because they spend little?

Let's buy more bullets, tanks, bombs, aircraft, equipment, etc. so we can go kill more people.

You've missed the point entirely. :roll:
He does have a point though. The army is also a big market for consumer goods. In Prussia the consumption of goods and therefor the income from traders would go down quit a few notches when the troops went to war.

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

that's a dumb argument, no offence. That's not how economics works. That 2107 billion makes jobs, yes, but as jobs created by tax payers, they reduce actual purchasing power. So it's not like they're free. On the whole, government jobs aren't particularly good (or bad) for the economy.

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

Yes, of course. So, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, etc. all of whom have less than $50 billion in their military have a "huge disaster" for an economy because they spend little?

Let's buy more bullets, tanks, bombs, aircraft, equipment, etc. so we can go kill more people.

You've missed the point entirely. :roll:

its either that or take over more countries so we can expand markets. untill we become a comand economy which means, shock, wed have to be socialist, there needs to be governmental spending to create lots of jobs. all the euros did it, as soon as they ran out of places to colonize and markets to open, they needed to spend money on the military to keep the economy going. if you can find a better way to pump 2,701 trillion into an economy and make absolutly sure that americans benifit from it, id like to hear it.

its either that or take over more countries so we can expand markets. untill we become a comand economy which means, shock, wed have to be socialist, there needs to be governmental spending to create lots of jobs. all the euros did it, as soon as they ran out of places to colonize and markets to open, they needed to spend money on the military to keep the economy going. if you can find a better way to pump 2,701 trillion into an economy and make absolutly sure that americans benifit from it, id like to hear it.

Dude that's so dumb though. Yes we're putting 2701 billion into the economy. But where is it coming from? From taxpayers, or in other words from the economy. YOu haven't MADE jobs, you've just moved them around! If they didn't spend it on the military (i.e. let taxpayers keep it) real wages go up, consumption goes up, demand goes up, demand for labour goes up, employment goes up! Theidea that you can 'make jobs' with tax money is ridiculous.

The US also sells weapons and trains other nations to use them. It cost a lot of money to develop the top of the line products for the world market.

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

Yes, of course. So, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, etc. all of whom have less than $50 billion in their military have a "huge disaster" for an economy because they spend little?

Let's buy more bullets, tanks, bombs, aircraft, equipment, etc. so we can go kill more people.

You've missed the point entirely. :roll:

its either that or take over more countries so we can expand markets. untill we become a comand economy which means, shock, wed have to be socialist, there needs to be governmental spending to create lots of jobs. all the euros did it, as soon as they ran out of places to colonize and markets to open, they needed to spend money on the military to keep the economy going. if you can find a better way to pump 2,701 trillion into an economy and make absolutly sure that americans benifit from it, id like to hear it.

Spend it on the people. Simple.

You do not need a command economy to spend it on the people. Military spending has little to do with how the economy functions, anyway.

I also have no problem with a command economy since I believe in it. I'm a Communist.

Spend the money on the people. Cease killing people.

Really having the second largest standing army in the world, while paying them substantially higher than the largest (China), costs quite a lot. And development takes a lot too. Basically, the stuff the military is developing is stuff thats never really been developed before. Prototypes. Its not like we're downing Zero's and copying their airframe, we're coming up with it on our own - and that costs quite a lot. Add to that the cost of stationing troops in a great number of countries, supplying them, keeping them armed, ect. as well as paying the Reserves and National Guard and the budget adds up quite quickly. I believe active duty pay alone mounts up to a huge amount... basically if you cut the budget to one fourth of its current status, you're gutting pay, laying off half the active duty soldiers and cancelling the reserves, and using this era's equipment for the next 50 years.

The US also sells weapons and trains other nations to use them. It cost a lot of money to develop the top of the line products for the world market.

See, once again, YOU PEOPLE ARE MISSING THE POINT.

You should not be selling equipment. You should be focusing on a defensive military not an offensive military. You should not be developing more "efficent" ways of killing people. You should be helping people live. Simple.

Realistically, you could pump that 2.7 trillion into medical research, or science in general, or healthcare, or any other such things and job growth would still occur. If you put the money into scientific research, there would be more jobs in science (and consequently more jobs everywhere else: science creates the products that factories build, the concepts for anything new on the market).

The US also sells weapons and trains other nations to use them. It cost a lot of money to develop the top of the line products for the world market.
I was under the impression that the US army shops at the cheapests supplier. Quantity over quality. Like with the M-3 Sherman tank.

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

that's a dumb argument, no offence. That's not how economics works. That 2107 billion makes jobs, yes, but as jobs created by tax payers, they reduce actual purchasing power. So it's not like they're free. On the whole, government jobs aren't particularly good (or bad) for the economy.

its not a dumb argument, its history. the us got out of the great depression because it spent so much money on ww2. thats the same thing with hitler. it seems counterintuitiive, i know. but, the more capital you invest, the more capital comes out. capital begits capital. first law of economics

Realistically, you could pump that 2.7 trillion into medical research, or science in general, or healthcare, or any other such things and job growth would still occur. If you put the money into scientific research, there would be more jobs in science (and consequently more jobs everywhere else: science creates the products that factories build, the concepts for anything new on the market).

realilistically, you cant, research takes education and extremely skilled labor. military is all about manufacturing. its something that can be built in factories and put many people to work.

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

that's a dumb argument, no offence. That's not how economics works. That 2107 billion makes jobs, yes, but as jobs created by tax payers, they reduce actual purchasing power. So it's not like they're free. On the whole, government jobs aren't particularly good (or bad) for the economy.

its not a dumb argument, its history. the us got out of the great depression because it spent so much money on ww2. thats the same thing with hitler. it seems counterintuitiive, i know. but, the more capital you invest, the more capital comes out. capital begits capital. first law of economics
Actually as far as I know the 3rd Reich was broke. So to keep up the appearance that all was in order Hitler had to step up his warplans. Or else he would have had to declare bankcruptcy. Cause the original plans, I think, where not to begin a war before 1941. Capital only begets capital if there realy is capital to spend.

The US also sells weapons and trains other nations to use them. It cost a lot of money to develop the top of the line products for the world market.

See, once again, YOU PEOPLE ARE MISSING THE POINT.

You should not be selling equipment. You should be focusing on a defensive military not an offensive military. You should not be developing more "efficent" ways of killing people. You should be helping people live. Simple.

im adressing other things here too.

number 1: i wish we were a command economy. but in the system we have now, the military has a crucial role other than killing people.

number 2: because one of the biggest ways the us pumps money into the economy is through the military, it is eventually go from defensive to offensive.

number 3: there is no other complex that can touch as many sectors of the economy. it touches manufacturing, service, research, etc.

so, the problem with military spending is really a reflection of how bad a total market economy is. its a symptom of a much larger flaw.

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

that's a dumb argument, no offence. That's not how economics works. That 2107 billion makes jobs, yes, but as jobs created by tax payers, they reduce actual purchasing power. So it's not like they're free. On the whole, government jobs aren't particularly good (or bad) for the economy.

its not a dumb argument, its history. the us got out of the great depression because it spent so much money on ww2. thats the same thing with hitler. it seems counterintuitiive, i know. but, the more capital you invest, the more capital comes out. capital begits capital. first law of economics
Actually as far as I know the 3rd Reich was broke. So to keep up the appearance that all was in order Hitler had to step up his warplans. Or else he would have had to declare bankcruptcy. Cause the original plans, I think, where not to begin a war before 1941. Capital only begets capital if there realy is capital to spend.

they were at first. they spent money they didnt have to jump start the economy. beginning of deficit spending. this is getting complex here, and im no economist by any means

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

that's a dumb argument, no offence. That's not how economics works. That 2107 billion makes jobs, yes, but as jobs created by tax payers, they reduce actual purchasing power. So it's not like they're free. On the whole, government jobs aren't particularly good (or bad) for the economy.

its not a dumb argument, its history. the us got out of the great depression because it spent so much money on ww2. thats the same thing with hitler. it seems counterintuitiive, i know. but, the more capital you invest, the more capital comes out. capital begits capital. first law of economics
Actually as far as I know the 3rd Reich was broke. So to keep up the appearance that all was in order Hitler had to step up his warplans. Or else he would have had to declare bankcruptcy. Cause the original plans, I think, where not to begin a war before 1941. Capital only begets capital if there realy is capital to spend.

they were at first. they spent money they didnt have to jump start the economy. beginning of deficit spending. this is getting complex here, and im no economist by any means
Yeah, they spend money they didn't have. And then when they couldn't spend anymore without reavealing their deficit they had to follow Rule of Aquisition#43: War is good for business.
Only catch is you need to win it.

its not a dumb argument, its history. the us got out of the great depression because it spent so much money on ww2. thats the same thing with hitler. it seems counterintuitiive, i know. but, the more capital you invest, the more capital comes out. capital begits capital. first law of economics

Right, but is depression spending something that's good/possible for a long term plan? NO! That's because depression spending is borrowed money. It MIGHT work in the short run, but to suggest we need a big army forever for economic reasons is the height of foolishness. Of course capital does beget capital, but what happens when we don't spend money on the military? People don't put their extra money under their mattresses (generally speaking), they either spend it, which increase consumption, jobs, economy in general, or they bank it, and the bank invests it! The market does a better job investing it than the government spending it on the miltary just to 'help the economy'.

I agree, what retards. Al Qaeda had their fun and no one else is going to mess with us. Besides the wars are for oil which makes Bush pocket money. Bush is spending more money than would be profitable.

I agree, what retards. Al Qaeda had their fun and no one else is going to mess with us. Besides the wars are for oil which makes Bush pocket money. Bush is spending more money than would be profitable.
Where's the oil! Dammit I want my oil!

I agree, what retards. Al Qaeda had their fun and no one else is going to mess with us. Besides the wars are for oil which makes Bush pocket money. Bush is spending more money than would be profitable.
Where's the oil! Dammit I want my oil!
It's in a shoe box under Bush's bed. Or on his Swiss bank account.

its not a dumb argument, its history. the us got out of the great depression because it spent so much money on ww2. thats the same thing with hitler. it seems counterintuitiive, i know. but, the more capital you invest, the more capital comes out. capital begits capital. first law of economics

Right, but is depression spending something that's good/possible for a long term plan? NO! That's because depression spending is borrowed money. It MIGHT work in the short run, but to suggest we need a big army forever for economic reasons is the height of foolishness. Of course capital does beget capital, but what happens when we don't spend money on the military? People don't put their extra money under their mattresses (generally speaking), they either spend it, which increase consumption, jobs, economy in general, or they bank it, and the bank invests it! The market does a better job investing it than the government spending it on the miltary just to 'help the economy'.

listen, lower taxes only work in the short term, they are jumb starters. the military is investment. its capital. the country basically keeps reinvesting in itself. like i said, it seems really counterintuiutive.

okay, its like owning a small business. first you go to a bank, and get money you dont have. business goes on, and you keep reinvesting money and your business grows. you arent deficit spending anymore. you are being a good businessman. cutting operating budgets helps, but the main drive of your business comes from reinvested capital.


lower taxes all the time would be terrible for the economy! they tried it the great depression it didnt work. lower taxes dont give people jobs. this is a whole question of where does money come from. does it just appear?

The US also sells weapons and trains other nations to use them. It cost a lot of money to develop the top of the line products for the world market.
I was under the impression that the US army shops at the cheapests supplier. Quantity over quality. Like with the M-3 Sherman tank.

The M-3 was the Grant. M-4 is the Sherman, no since WWII the US have strived for quality over quantity, like the F-16/F15. The US lags in some areas (like rifles, mediocre, not bad) but aviation the US is top.

military spending is never, ever about feeling safer, its about jobs. thats 2,107 trillion going into american jobs, with american contractors. smaller military= huge economic disaster.

that's a dumb argument, no offence. That's not how economics works. That 2107 billion makes jobs, yes, but as jobs created by tax payers, they reduce actual purchasing power. So it's not like they're free. On the whole, government jobs aren't particularly good (or bad) for the economy.

its not a dumb argument, its history. the us got out of the great depression because it spent so much money on ww2. thats the same thing with hitler. it seems counterintuitiive, i know. but, the more capital you invest, the more capital comes out. capital begits capital. first law of economics
Actually as far as I know the 3rd Reich was broke. So to keep up the appearance that all was in order Hitler had to step up his warplans. Or else he would have had to declare bankcruptcy. Cause the original plans, I think, where not to begin a war before 1941. Capital only begets capital if there realy is capital to spend.

they were at first. they spent money they didnt have to jump start the economy. beginning of deficit spending. this is getting complex here, and im no economist by any means
Yeah, they spend money they didn't have. And then when they couldn't spend anymore without reavealing their deficit they had to follow Rule of Aquisition#43: War is good for business.
Only catch is you need to win it.

war is good for business for a reason. it jump starts economies, it creates job, causes investment...eh, bah, i need to go eat, ill be back later

and im not really this cynical. war is terrible, people die, and a few people get really rich. im just saying its good for the economy in the long run and neccissary in capitalism.

listen, lower taxes only work in the short term, they are jumb starters. the military is investment. its capital. the country basically keeps reinvesting in itself. like i said, it seems really counterintuiutive.

It's investment, sure but it's not the ONLY way we could invest! Nor is it the most efficient way; you seem to be imply that without the military/industrial complex the American Economy would collapse, which is a ludicrous claim from anyone with the most basic grasp of economics.

okay, its like owning a small business. first you go to a bank, and get money you dont have. business goes on, and you keep reinvesting money and your business grows. you arent deficit spending anymore. you are being a good businessman. cutting operating budgets helps, but the main drive of your business comes from reinvested capital.
What does this have to do with military spending? It's inherently inefficient, or we wouldn't need taxes to support it (i.e. the market doesn't support high levels of military spending). ALl I'm saying is that claiming our economy would collapse without military spending is ridiculous, since military spending just redistributes wealth FROM the tax payer TO the soldier/researcher/whatever. If we didn't spend the money on the military, people would get to keep it, increasing their real wage (because they're now taking home more money), increasing concumption, increasing demand, and increasing employment in various areas.


lower taxes all the time would be terrible for the economy! they tried it the great depression it didnt work. lower taxes dont give people jobs. this is a whole question of where does money come from. does it just appear? The money doesn't COME from anywhere, what lower taxes do is increase the real value of your wage; a given basket of goods costs less, because the purchasing power of you dollar has increased (to a certain level). By reducing taxes you have more money to spend, which drives consumption, which grows the economy.

Seriously....

its not a dumb argument, its history. the us got out of the great depression because it spent so much money on ww2. thats the same thing with hitler. it seems counterintuitiive, i know. but, the more capital you invest, the more capital comes out. capital begits capital. first law of economics

Right, but is depression spending something that's good/possible for a long term plan? NO! That's because depression spending is borrowed money. It MIGHT work in the short run, but to suggest we need a big army forever for economic reasons is the height of foolishness. Of course capital does beget capital, but what happens when we don't spend money on the military? People don't put their extra money under their mattresses (generally speaking), they either spend it, which increase consumption, jobs, economy in general, or they bank it, and the bank invests it! The market does a better job investing it than the government spending it on the miltary just to 'help the economy'.

listen, lower taxes only work in the short term, they are jumb starters. the military is investment. its capital. the country basically keeps reinvesting in itself. like i said, it seems really counterintuiutive.

okay, its like owning a small business. first you go to a bank, and get money you dont have. business goes on, and you keep reinvesting money and your business grows. you arent deficit spending anymore. you are being a good businessman. cutting operating budgets helps, but the main drive of your business comes from reinvested capital.


lower taxes all the time would be terrible for the economy! they tried it the great depression it didnt work. lower taxes dont give people jobs. this is a whole question of where does money come from. does it just appear?

No, higher taxes caused the depression. The US got involved with a trade war and raised taxes on foreign goods and vice versa. Then the over leveraged stock market went under, because they let people buy stocks with paper and not with money.

listen, lower taxes only work in the short term, they are jumb starters. the military is investment. its capital. the country basically keeps reinvesting in itself. like i said, it seems really counterintuiutive.

It's investment, sure but it's not the ONLY way we could invest! Nor is it the most efficient way; you seem to be imply that without the military/industrial complex the American Economy would collapse, which is a ludicrous claim from anyone with the most basic grasp of economics.

okay, its like owning a small business. first you go to a bank, and get money you dont have. business goes on, and you keep reinvesting money and your business grows. you arent deficit spending anymore. you are being a good businessman. cutting operating budgets helps, but the main drive of your business comes from reinvested capital.
What does this have to do with military spending? It's inherently inefficient, or we wouldn't need taxes to support it (i.e. the market doesn't support high levels of military spending). ALl I'm saying is that claiming our economy would collapse without military spending is ridiculous, since military spending just redistributes wealth FROM the tax payer TO the soldier/researcher/whatever. If we didn't spend the money on the military, people would get to keep it, increasing their real wage (because they're now taking home more money), increasing concumption, increasing demand, and increasing employment in various areas.

first of all, lets get away from the whole investment thing. thats whats throwing both of us off. colonies were good, if not neccisary, for european capitalism. why? they created a demand. all of a sudden a billion indians want british manufactured goods. it was costly to maintain colonies, and europeans were taxed. but, in the end, the demand it created stimulated the economy. its not like wealth was being redistributed from the brits to the east india trading company. this takes a huge leap in understanding, but think of the military as a colony. the government creates an artificial demand for weapons, and an entire segment of the population springs up to support it. The military is like india, sure britain wont collapse without it, but it WILL be weaker and it DOES serve an economic purpose.


lower taxes all the time would be terrible for the economy! they tried it the great depression it didnt work. lower taxes dont give people jobs. this is a whole question of where does money come from. does it just appear? The money doesn't COME from anywhere, what lower taxes do is increase the real value of your wage; a given basket of goods costs less, because the purchasing power of you dollar has increased (to a certain level). By reducing taxes you have more money to spend, which drives consumption, which grows the economy.

Seriously....

lowering taxes is just increasing inflation. if everybody has more money, they all have the same purchasing power they used to. prices rise and we are back where we started. in the short run they can give a little bit of pick me up because people have disposable income that they can go buy stuff with. but if everybody wants a japanese dvd player or german car, it doesnt even accomplish that. and, even if economic laws were broiken or you fixed prices, how will you stimulate the economy when taxes reach 0%. obviously tax lowering isnt a renewable resource the way capital reinvestment, er, i mean, forming new sectors of the economy is.



oh, and one more thing, to New XMen, the high taxes were high tariffs. internally, taxes were super low, because domesticallly the govt was laissez faire. more money, more disposable income can go into the stock market. but when inflation caught up to the lower taxes, people needed to sell their stocks to cover raising costs. then people lose jobs, so really quickly the problem is deflation. government didnt see this trend in time, rose interest rates, and voila, the great depression.

first of all, lets get away from the whole investment thing. thats whats throwing both of us off. colonies were good, if not neccisary, for european capitalism. why? they created a demand. all of a sudden a billion indians want british manufactured goods. it was costly to maintain colonies, and europeans were taxed. but, in the end, the demand it created stimulated the economy. its not like wealth was being redistributed from the brits to the east india trading company. this takes a huge leap in understanding, but think of the military as a colony. the government creates an artificial demand for weapons, and an entire segment of the population springs up to support it. The military is like india, sure britain wont collapse without it, but it WILL be weaker and it DOES serve an economic purpose.

This is totally wrong; colonialism took place not in order to expand markets but in order to extract wealth in the form of resources from smaller nations.

The Military is NOT like a colony; it basically produces no wealth (security counts for something, but it's not really wealth). The military demand that you're talking about only EXISTS because we pay for it! The military certainly produces no wealth. No offence, but I don't think you're very knowledgable in this area. TRust me, ok?




lowering taxes is just increasing inflation. if everybody has more money, they all have the same purchasing power they used to. prices rise and we are back where we started. in the short run they can give a little bit of pick me up because people have disposable income that they can go buy stuff with. but if everybody wants a japanese dvd player or german car, it doesnt even accomplish that. and, even if economic laws were broiken or you fixed prices, how will you stimulate the economy when taxes reach 0%. obviously tax lowering isnt a renewable resource the way capital reinvestment, er, i mean, forming new sectors of the economy is.

No. Taxes don't stimulate the economy in the way you think they do, they actually do the opposite. Government expenditure can SOMETIMES help the economy, but only in the short run. In the long run, 'stimulation' is not necessary, as the market self-corrects. The reason lowering taxes actually increase real wages is partly because most government expenditures, like the military, don't produce any wealth. If reinvested, they WOULD produce something. Lowering taxes does not cause inflation; there is no new money being add to the economic flow, it's just moving money from government to consumption, investment and net exports.

Biggest waste of money? : Salishe for his parents!

first of all, lets get away from the whole investment thing. thats whats throwing both of us off. colonies were good, if not neccisary, for european capitalism. why? they created a demand. all of a sudden a billion indians want british manufactured goods. it was costly to maintain colonies, and europeans were taxed. but, in the end, the demand it created stimulated the economy. its not like wealth was being redistributed from the brits to the east india trading company. this takes a huge leap in understanding, but think of the military as a colony. the government creates an artificial demand for weapons, and an entire segment of the population springs up to support it. The military is like india, sure britain wont collapse without it, but it WILL be weaker and it DOES serve an economic purpose.

This is totally wrong; colonialism took place not in order to expand markets but in order to extract wealth in the form of resources from smaller nations.

The Military is NOT like a colony; it basically produces no wealth (security counts for something, but it's not really wealth). The military demand that you're talking about only EXISTS because we pay for it! The military certainly produces no wealth. No offence, but I don't think you're very knowledgable in this area. TRust me, ok?




No, youve been lied to. it wasnt about resources. resources were bought so that the colonists would have money to spend on their colonizer's manufacturing. i have news for you, algeria aint materially wealthy. france wanted to keep it because tens of millions of people had to buy renaults if they wanted a car. markets was the buzz word of the 19th century.

no offense, but you try to simplify things too much. our money doesnt come from getting gold or growing crops. it comes from creating demand. read haubswam and come back to me. have you taken econ? if economy wqas just about digging shit out of the ground and selling it, you should invest all your money in agriculture and mining. its not. the military creates wealth for the people employyed by it. these people pay taxes and buy things. wealth doesnt just get redistributed, it gets grown. value is created in the stocks of contract defenders and patents for military tech. i really wish i was an economist. but trust me, the extraction of resources doesnt directly translate into economic growth. you arent an expert either, id assume, judging by the fact that you are still thinking merchantalistically.

its really hard to understand this and its almost impossible to understand intuitivlly. BUT, we got out of the great depression because FDR put america to work. the ccc or the tenesse valley authority or any of the alphabet program didnt really create tangible wealth. but, it got the economy out of its depression. results speak for themselves.

lowering taxes is just increasing inflation. if everybody has more money, they all have the same purchasing power they used to. prices rise and we are back where we started. in the short run they can give a little bit of pick me up because people have disposable income that they can go buy stuff with. but if everybody wants a japanese dvd player or german car, it doesnt even accomplish that. and, even if economic laws were broiken or you fixed prices, how will you stimulate the economy when taxes reach 0%. obviously tax lowering isnt a renewable resource the way capital reinvestment, er, i mean, forming new sectors of the economy is.

No. Taxes don't stimulate the economy in the way you think they do, they actually do the opposite. Government expenditure can SOMETIMES help the economy, but only in the short run. In the long run, 'stimulation' is not necessary, as the market self-corrects. The reason lowering taxes actually increase real wages is partly because most government expenditures, like the military, don't produce any wealth. If reinvested, they WOULD produce something. Lowering taxes does not cause inflation; there is no new money being add to the economic flow, it's just moving money from government to consumption, investment and net exports.

they are reinvested! what do you think reinvestment is? its creating new companies and new areas of the economy. there is new money coming in. when your 2 or 3 % isnt going to the government, its like free money. a penny saved is a penny earmed. the probelm is everybody else is two or three percent richer. so, prices would raise two or three percent. self correcting economy!

they are reinvested!@ what do you think reinvestment is? its creating new companies and new areas of the economy. there is new money coming in. when your 2 or 3 % isnt going to the government, its like free money. a penny saved is a penny earmed. the probelm is everybody else is two or three percent richer. so, prices would raise two or three percent. self correcting economy!

I'm not denying that military expenditure is a form of investment, I'm saying that it's not a very efficient form of investment and to suggest it is better for the economy than allowing the market to do it's work is laughable at best. No, prices would not raise two or three percent. New (good) money is produced by growing the economy naturally, not through g expenditures. What you don't seem to understand is that the 2 or 3 percent more money we would have was already being spent before, by the military and thus impacting the price level! The level of wealth is (outside of the gains made by increased efficiency) exactly the same! Inflation does not occur, since the total level of expenditures will be the same- expenditures are moved from government, to consumption, investment and net exports. All I'm saying is that military expenditure are NOT necessary components of our economy, nor are they in and of themselves a good way to stimulate the economy in any way.

Finally, go actually learn something about economics. THis is very, very basic stuff.

okay, after talking to my roommate, i think i finally understand a little bit about economy, im kind of dumb. okay, so, heres my new position. the military serves as a way to redistibute wealth. it makes the entire economy more efficient because it utilizes resources. any time the government can take money and give it to more people, those people are utilized and the country uses its human resources more efficiently. the name of the game is efficiency. wealth isnt created. but if we didnt have the government creating any jobs, the wealth of our country would not be utilized efficiently. the military is just one of those programs.

you were right, i was wrong, i bow before malberta and realize i dont understand economics at all.

but if everybody who gets a tax break spends it on consumer products, consumer products prices would increase, and, bam, inflation. its possible im just being really dense, but lower taxes arent always the solution any more than investing in the military all the time is, right?

but if everybody who gets a tax break spends it on consumer products, consumer products prices would increase, and, bam, inflation. its possible im just being really dense, but lower taxes arent always the solution any more than investing in the military all the time is, right?

Possibly in the short run, but in the long run the increased demand spurs an increase in production, which is what grows the economy (if the increased demand is natural and sustainable). When other firms see how much money is to be made (becuase prices are rising) they enter into the market, increasing supply, thereby decreasing prices, until an equilibrium point where demand and supply are equal. Lowering taxes tend to be more efficient because individuals are better able to judge their own interests than governments are.

Examples of where military spending makes no sense:

On the one hand, expend billions into trying to develop a missile defence system that many feel has a low probability of ever working.

On the other hand, spend hundreds of millions to develop mach-7 scram-jet technology that would make any missile defence system obsolete.

On the third hand, recognize that it is very unlikely that a missile defence system would ever be needed anyway. The active enemies are mostly very low-tech, terrorist type organizations. With the excetion of North Korea and China, there are no other countries that seem to have any interest in putting money into ICBM development. All of the issues of nukes and missiles in the rest of the world are regional threats only which the defense system would not make any diference for.

But hey... at least it keeps some people at NASA, Raytheon, and Boeing employed....

-Z-

Keeping the arms up-to-date, training expenditures, the war on terror, and of course our intervention in foreign affairs we have no business being in. We need to bring our boys home; let the world deal with its own problems. I'm sick of having our people die because of our good intentions.

but if everybody who gets a tax break spends it on consumer products, consumer products prices would increase, and, bam, inflation. its possible im just being really dense, but lower taxes arent always the solution any more than investing in the military all the time is, right?

Possibly in the short run, but in the long run the increased demand spurs an increase in production, which is what grows the economy (if the increased demand is natural and sustainable). When other firms see how much money is to be made (becuase prices are rising) they enter into the market, increasing supply, thereby decreasing prices, until an equilibrium point where demand and supply are equal. Lowering taxes tend to be more efficient because individuals are better able to judge their own interests than governments are.

And start new businesses. If the tax rate is to high there is not enough new small businesses to provide new jobs.

We just like to spend more money than we can ever make... it's the plague of considering one's country elitist.