House Approves Massive $606 Billion Military Spending Bill

OK, no tantrum, no fishing, just straight debate then.

I am obviously too stupid to understand all those long words you used earlier. So can you do me a favor and explain what that sentence has to do with justifying military spending in terms a 14 year old could understand?

 

Which words confused you so?

 

Well, it was more the manor in which they were used together. This is unimportant though.

All I need from you is to take two phrases 1) Keynesian demand management, and 2) spin-off of technical progress, and explain their use together, and their relevance to justifying military spending.

I would think this could be done in less then 4 sentences.

 

Oh no, let's see you at least try! Refer me to a sentence

Already done!

Actually it needed more as one needed to compare the different political economic schools used in defence economics. That allows one to evaluate the role that the military sector plays in the macroeconomy

 

Like I said, you can only speak in techno babble, because your posts have no substance, and you refuse to prove me wrong.

Instead you want to claim a 3 paragraph explanation for a very simple question isn't more proof of your fraud!

 

Such a simple request. Refer me to one sentence that you cannot understand. Let's evaluate your self-diagnosed vocabulary paucity

 

The guy has given you the exact phrases he wants explanined numerous times already. You have not done so.

Conclusion - you have no clue what you are talking about because you can not explain what you are talking about in terms that make sense.

I am not trying to be rude here Reiver and I do think that you have a contribution to make .. and a probably a substantive one if anyone could ever figure out what you are trying to say.

You are claiming that the Military contributes to the economy .. Well of course it does .. any spending (government or otherwise) contributers to the economy by definition.

What we are trying to get at here is whether or not Military spending is a fiscally responsible thing to do .. is there a long term benefit or Return on Investment that justifies the spending of 1 Trillion dollars per year (Total Military Spending).

 

How easily you fib! I asked him to make it clear where he is all so confused. I then responded with a more detailed paragraph. He replied, with a tantrum, within a minute. This indicates that he isn't interested in the debate, nor has he bothered to peruse the information.

Rather than being immature, have a go at actually responding:

Its a basic reference to the political economy of military expenditure (a basic requirement if one is going to understand the effects of the military sector). The issue is straight forward: does military expenditure have a direct economic role? Orthodox microeconomics suggests not. We have a simple analysis into public good provision, but a focus on 'crowding-out effects' (such that the civilian sector is denied resources and therefore achieves lower growth). This is also supported by the offshoot of classical liberalism, where the military sector is understood within the notion of influence costs engineered through imperfect accountability: i.e. the military-industrial complex. The military sector is seen as bloated, with rent-seeking behaviour encouraging inefficiency and over-production of arms.

However, these schools of thought cannot explain trends in the military sector. We've seen, for example, that military expenditure has been counter-cyclical. As private demand falls in a recession, it can be used to stabilise overall demand and therefore maintain higher employment levels and secure a return to growth. There is some agreement over these effects amongst the orthodox Keynesians and the heterodox Marxists. I'd personally refer to the impact of market concentration, where cost-plus pricing policies (enabled by achieving market power) can increase the threat of destabilising stagflation (where we see shocks leading to demand problems, but with the monopoly sector protecting profit through price adjustments such that the competitive sector is forced into an even more delicate position).

In addition, we know that technical progress is hampered by market failure. The high fixed costs associated with research & development, coupled with the highly uncertain returns, leads to an inefficiently low level of investments. See, for example, the call in Europe to try and mimic the US with a 'common armaments policy' (using that as a means to reduce the gap in International R&D divides). The argument is simple: costs in the military sector, relatively more skewed towards R&D, provides an environment where know-how spills over from the military sector to the civilian sector. As weapon technologies advanced, technologies also spin-off into the civilian sector such that economic growth is further increased.

Fibbing is certainly rude.

Try to keep up (which you'd have achieved if you had bothered to read the comments)! Liberal political economy and orthodox analysis suggests that there is no direct economic role: i.e. any apparent fiscal gains are actually dwarfed by either crowding out effects or increases in inefficiency. I've referred to two examples where that is dismissed as inaccurate. Unless you compare and contrast the schools used in the political economy of military expenditure your "fiscal responsibility" comments will continue to be the inane non-economic splatter that they currently represent

 

See this is what he does. he hides a very simple point in such overwhelming techno-babble, that no one wants to engage!

This is one of the first shill techniques that was used!

 

You were asked to refer to one sentence you didn't understand. The tantrum response indicates that you don't even believe your humph. Game, set and match. However, not a fan of tennis. It would have been much sweeter if there wasn't such dishonesty and there was a genuine effort to engage in the required political economic analysis of military expenditure. The topic deserves it!

 

Are you saying, in so many words, that military spending has its uses in economic ways other than "providing for the defense" such as artificially employing people where it other-wise would not, using the military spending as a "stimulus" to the economy, in which certain benefits can come during a recession as well as technological advances that may have not otherwise arisen in the private market? If so, then I got it, but I dont think we have a historically relevant time to which we can look back and with any certainty claim that such economic tactics actually provide for the most benefit for the greatest amount in society. The past 100 years where we have actually employed these tactics are the years in which the US has risen and fallen, not a very long period of time. And, these tactics fall on the side of the downfall, not the upswing.

In short, the correlation exists between Keynesian economics and the decrease in US economy and wealth. Not gradually, but quite rapidly over the past 30 - 40 years.

 

It is just acknowledgement of the nature of the capitalist system employed in the United States. There certainly is no notion that it has evolved into the 'ideal'. For example, evidence does suggest that civilian expenditures are superior to military expenditures in terms of Keynesian demand management.

What decrease? That is a false statement. All we have is decoupling, where the relative importance of the US economy for the world economy is on the decline. In terms of the military sector, an important issue is the continued importance of spin-off technologies from arms production. There is growing evidence of 'spin-in effects', with more rapid civilian technical progress leading to more inefficient R&D where we're increasingly left with finding military uses for civilian technologies. This could significantly increase the economic problems created by a high military burden (i.e. military expenditure divided by GDP)