Tell you what .. try reading your own link as they make the same points I have. 1) The cost of projecting power increases as technology spreads. http://www.flemishpeaceinstitute.eu/get_pdf.php?ID=229&lang=EN Your perspective is myopic and you need to learn how to present your ideas better. I understand that economic theory applies and have granted that it plays a role. It is not intelligent and refute a point with "that is against game theory, or you are not considering macroeconomic implications" You need to state how game theory applies or how macroeconomic implications are a factor. In any case .. your own link supports my premise.
That can't be the case as you've just spouted opinion and ignored political economy No, they've referred to the nature of technical progress. Given the price inflation reflects fixed costs (and therefore the integral importance of the economies of scale issues I've mentioned), they support my position. You just don't appreciate it as you go for the vague in order to avoid content It would help if you had just an inkling over the political economy I've utilised. There's nothing complex in the arguments. The cleverness is in the comparing and contrasting. Golly, how decent of you! I notice you cannot actually dispute my point. You used MAD incorrectly, given you really should have been describing the unstable equilibria created through power asymmetries. Already achieved! Nope. It refers to the dramatic changes in the arms industry. If you wanted to actually compose a relevant argument you'd have referred to the switch from spin-offs to spin-ins. Its only then that you can fully measure the costs and benefits from arms production and the military burden
Going to cherry pick this query if you don't mind. Space as Reiver has suggested or possibly green technologies, the former is easily demagogued as wasteful expenditure by those that don't see the benefits... sadly sometimes I fall into this category. The latter is hammered by the political right... leaves much room for concern in my opinion. However, defense technology isn't completely gone, we can thank them for unmanned drone technologies that may lead to unmanned space exploration which I believe is the best avenue to peruse in that regard.
I have not ignored the political economy. What has been ignored is my quote from your link which, if read in context supports my premise. 1) The cost of projecting power increases as technology spreads.
You're just repeating your error. We merely have confirmation of the impact of technical progress, as described by my reference to price inflation created through fixed costs. Economies of scale again!
The fact that you can not address the quote from your own link .. proves who is in error. I think perhaps you need to read the article again. 1) The cost of projecting power increases as technology spreads. The nature of conflict has changed (the enemy has become more sophisticated). The cost of developing and producing ever more sophisticated technology (to combat a more sophisticated enemy) in order to maintain a comprehensive defence industry is becomming impossible. Your article claims that a large part of the increase in costs is related to the increased sophistication of the enemy. Your link makes this abundantly clear.
No, you've deliberately misinterpreted a quote in order to maintain an opinion free from political economy. This is drivel. The nature of the arms industry has led to the enemy leaving the 'game' (i.e. we've seen a shift towards non-traditional conflict with a preference for non-sophisticated technique). You couldn't be more wrong. Don't be making stuff up now! The article makes important point over the developments in the arms industry. Time for you to admit that your opinion isn't based on political economy! Providing itself a cunning definition of what political economy entails
LOL .. my opinion has never been free from political economy. Your delusion is your claim that the stage of technological development of the enemy has nothing to do with the cost of defeating that enemy. Absurd ! You are just digging your hole deeper. Nation states continue to "advance" technologically. Your claim that they have not is "uber drivel"
Play pretend if you want. However, any quick look at our exchange will show that I've been the only one that has referred to different schools of thought. You position is basically "I've read some books and, whilst I can't apply the content to the conversation, I'm going to use those books to say that I'm right". That won't wash. I've referred directly to empirical evidence, such as the speed of price inflation. That price inflation reflects fixed costs is a matter of obviousness. That those costs have actually led to a result akin to the instability of MAD has also been described (i.e. given power asymmetries the rational decision is to leave the game; then leading to different game playing such as non-traditional conflict) No, you're just struggling to respond to the points raised. As I said, try some political economy!
what kind of "political economy" do we have when politicians let bankers and Wall street cheat and steal with impunity. read this and vomit. or contact your congressman.http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...wall-street-crimes-20110817?link=mostpopular3
We don't have a kind of 'political economy'. Instead we have an economy that can be explained by an aspect of political economic analysis: i.e. neo-liberalism (which itself is understood differently in different schools of thought)
As you say political economy originally meant economics as we know it today. It was still occasionally used up until about the 1940's. In my mind in modern times it distinguishes itself from simply economics by embodying an eventual economic policy as well. For instance Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations would have certainly been political economy because of the fact that it had a definite message for how nations should be managed derived from economic principles. In modern usage though the main place that I've seen it used is, well, the economy of politics. For instance in "A History of Economic Theory and Method" it talked about "The New Political Economy" where it applied general incentive examination to the matters of politics, how regulations are passed and politicians elected in so on.
I wonder whether economists today are confused that the Journal of Political Economy is actually a general economics publication. Indeed, I mentioned that I've seen political economy applied to public choice economics. But why did the meaning of political economy have to be corrupted by the economics of politics? I imagine that, as neoclassicals have little use for the definition Reiver gave, they sought to put the term back into use (and thus give public choice economics and more attractive name).
I have granted that inflation is a factor. Your delusion is your claim that the stage of technological development of the enemy has nothing to do with the cost of defeating that enemy. The only struggle here is your ability to comprehend a simple fact. It is does not take a rocket scientist to understand that it is going to cost more to fight an enemy equiped with modern weapons, than an enemy equiped with sticks and stones.
Again, you only show a naivety based on ignoring political economy. You'd make a great neoclassical economist mind you! Let's summarise it. Whilst there is some dispute over how US policy has evolved (as demonstrated, for example, by the liberal analysis into the military industrial complex compared to something as mundane as Reaganomics and its military keynesianism), we know that the technical progress is key in determining the 'true' costs from any military burden. The US, compared to her Western allies, has successfully used the military sector to generate spin-off technologies. Of course we can also argue that, compared to her Western allies, these spin-offs are more vital because of the detrimental effects of income inequality and market concentration on entrepreneurial behaviour. And the result? Power asymmetries generated by the reality of fixed costs (those economies of scale!) where the enemy leaves the 'game'. Again you show zero appreciation of the required political economy. Your 'cost more' is meaningless, given the spin-off gains that are available. We're only in dicey waters because of the apparent dominance- given changes in the civilian sector- of spin-in technologies. The challenge for the US? Shifting resources to areas where more spin-offs are available. A difficult challenge that's not appreciated by someone that's trying to construct argument because on inane comment over 'sticks and stones'
