Infinitum98 said:
Irvine511 said:[q] The GDP argument exasperates defense budget expert Christopher Hellman. To say that defense spending as a percent of GDP is historically low “is accurate, but it is also misleading,” said Hellman, who heads the Project on Military Spending Oversight. It is equally accurate to say that the proposed 2008 defense budget, minus war funds, “is more than 25 percent above the Cold War average — and this for a military one-third smaller than it was in 1990,” he said.
The Pentagon is hardly starving. “Since Sept. 11, 2001, annual defense spending — not including funding for Iraq and Afghanistan — has grown by $120 million, an increase of 34 percent,” Hellman said. The only reason the percentage of GDP is smaller is because the U.S. economy has grown even faster — 44 percent over the same period, he said.
To cite the “historically low percentage of GDP” argument as reason to further increase defense spending “is a specious argument, Hellman said. “It’s like your landlord saying that since you got a pay raise, your rent should increase.” The GDP number describes the value of the U.S. economy. It tells nothing about how much the military needs to spend, he said.
“What happens if GDP decreases?” as it might during a major recession. “Would the military then support a parallel reduction in its budget? I think not,” Hellman said.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/03/2545232
[/q]
Diemen said:You cannot even begin to tell me that the current war and World War II are comparable. That we're spending significantly less than we were in WWII does not make the amount we're spending just a-ok.
But as you've clearly indicated, you're the expert here.
Irvine511 said:the cycle starts again.
we find out that looking at GDP is a useless way to gauge military spending.
but then we are told, no, it is the best way to gauge military spending.
obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.
Strongbow said:If you know a better way to gauge military spendings burden on the United States versus other time periods, please show us.
Irvine511 said:
the best way to gauge military spend in is inflation-adjusted raw dollars. comparisons to WW2 are silly, as would be comparisons to the Civil War.
are you going to argue that, should the US economy shrink, the military budget should shrink correspondingly? should we just spend on the military a certain percentage of GDP, no matter what GDP actually is at the time?
Strongbow said:I think this clearly shows that your mis-understanding the whole point.
Strongbow said:If the US economy shrinks, and US military spending remains the same or rises, then what I would say is that the burden to the United States in terms of defense spending has become greater. The point here is measuring the burden to the United States under any circumstances and whether the United States is able to continue to pay such a level of defense spending.
Irvine511 said:repetition is not argumentation. the "burden" on a country has as much to do with shifting percentages of spending on things like, say, medicare and social security on an aging population. 5% in 1960 vs 5% in 2010 are going to exact a very different toll on a population relative to what else it chooses to spend it's money on. we don't spend the same % of GDP on social security than we did 30 years ago, nor will we spend the same 30 years hence. needs change. the 50% of GDP is entirely appropriate to WW2, and it seems, when taken in raw dollars and given the cost-benefit of the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and the long-term costs of establishing a sucking, bloody, hate-inspiring American Empire in Mesopotamia and given what the rest of the world is spending, that 5% of GDP is actually far too high.
Irvine511 said:
what's far more relevant is the fact that the US makes up about 50% of worldwide military spending, distantly followed by the UK, France, and Japan. global spending has declined since the end of the cold war as well, yet the US has not followed this trend as it's spending has gone up in inflation adjusted raw dollars since current spending is very, very near Cold War levels.
but you're right, these numbers don't tell us how the money should be spent, or would be better spent. but take into account that the UN spends a total of $20bn. the cost of funding of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 alone is $170bn. and you're ignoring the fact that the $440bn is foisted on US taxpayers, not the US economy. why should we pay in the neighborhood of $3 trillion for a war that the vast majority think was a mistake and predicated upon lies?
you see the fallacy of trying to make these broad, self-serving historical comparisons. if anything, increasing the US budget probably inspires the same behavior in China, Russia, and India, which then inspires likewise behavior in, say, Taiwan and Pakistan.
Strongbow said:
National Security trumps every other spending issue in the United States. Fail to protect US security, foreign or domestic, and you risk being unable to provide for social security, medicare etc. The United States ability to spend money on anything is compromised when you don't protect the global economy or the planets access to key natural resources which heavily impacts the global economy and the United States. This in turn impacts the United States ability to pay for domestic programs like social security and medicare.
Irvine511 said:
sorry, you lose.
you're already arguing opinion -- that Iraq is somehow a national security interest, that Iraq is automatically a "good" way to spend money -- and not fact.
the fact remains: looking at % of GDP is a useless way to gauge the amount of military spending.
Irvine511 said:[q]
Again, the point is how much of a burden current spending is to the United States and whether it can be sustained. [/q]
you're right. and % of GDP is about the worst way to measure this.
you're free to argue that Iraq is a good place to spend $12bn a month. just don't pretend that this has anything to do with economics. you're only arguing, and offering, tiresome political arguments.
Irvine511 said:Christopher Hellman knows that if someone in a family suddenly has a brain tumor, their spending priorities change.
this is preposterous. keep repeating the same lines, it won't make them any more true.
you see the fallacy of trying to make these broad, self-serving historical comparisons. if anything, increasing the US budget probably inspires the same behavior in China, Russia, and India, which then inspires likewise behavior in, say, Taiwan and Pakistan.
given what the rest of the world is spending, that 5% of GDP is actually far too high.
Strongbow said:
Whats preposterous is you are unwilling to accept a basic fact which is obvious to most people including Christopher Hellman. In order to understand the burden any level of spending has on any particular entity, it must be compared to that entities total wealth.
financeguy said:
No, he hasn't. He's got the point perfectly, and he's run rings around you in arguing it.
You've said it yourself. If the economy shrinks - and most analysts believe that we are heading into a recession - then what looks now to be quite a moderate % may turn out to look quite a large one after several quarters of negative real GDP growth.
Irvine511 said:
Hellman most assuredly disagrees with your assessment of the situation -- he notes, quite specifically, how specious the rationale you're putting forward is. it's not about the burden on the country, but about the burden on the taxpayer. *that* is why someone gets up in arms about $12bn a month. total GDP has NOTHING to do what what needs actually are.
[/q]
Irvine511 said:which proves the point. determining defense spending as a % of GDP -- or using that as an excuse for a massive industry that has only grown with the Bush administration will contractors and lobbyists -- is a stupid and worthless way to go about it. GDP decreased, but military spending when up. THERE IS NO CORRELATION. so military spending continues to go up as GDP decreases. what then? higher taxes? cutting more social programs? increase the deficit even more? THIS is the burden that we should worry about. THIS is where "affordability" comes in to play.
why is the military 1/3rd smaller than it was in 1990, yet spending has not correspondingly decreased?