http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17429786 None other than our own United States Department of Defense! It's ironic to hear so many people on these forums discuss the evils and wastefulness of government. All the while it's our government, and quite possibly the largest redistribution program on the planet that keeps our economy afloat. That 8.2% that we keep talking about would skyrocket if it weren't for out government employing these 3.2 million people. You may take exception that I called it a redistribution program, but let's consider who is most likely to enlist. The group most likely to join the military will come from low income rural areas, and the net results is that they're made better off. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html Is this an example of welfare working or are the core values taught in our armed services what actually deserves praise? As a vet I tend to go with the latter, but there's certainly a case to be made for the former.
Don't know how it is itemized, however, it is mind-numbing when you look at the number of businesses that are solely or predominantly reliant upon government contracts (i.e. Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, General Atomics, General Dynamics, a significant part of Boeing, etc.).
it was a great way for me to leave home and make it on my own and I will tell you I was lost before I enlisted
That's cool. As long as they stick to defending our borders and not running around trying to police the world.
If the OP is trying to compare the DoD to welfare and other social programs that redistribute wealth there is one tiny little difference..................they still have to get up and go to work which in many cases involves getting shot at or blown up by IEDs. The people I knew on public assistance didn't do jack squat unless they were on the verge of running out of benefits.
There is an actual, organic demand for a military. If the government didn't fulfill that need, private associations would.
Do you think the market demands a military as large as ours? I'd say we spend far more on our military than what is actually necessary, but that's unsurprising given that we're forced to pay for it.
But then they'd have to make a profit in order to afford doing it, just like everybody else, and the military would be hugely inefficient. Less bombs for your buck. They wouldn't be able to defend as much territory or guarantee property claims, which would make capitalism function at a much-reduced rate.
Not necessarily. There are a handful of large multinational military and security corporations. The likes of Academi, Securitas AB, and CACI can easily take control over such matters. Securitas AB's 2010 revenue alone exceeds the military expenditures of Japan in 2011.
I do agree it is way to large , other countries are using us to defend their interests and it has gotten us in trouble over and over
Our federal Congress is only delegated the general powers to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; and, by no latitude of construction should that include the common offense or general warfare.
It could be done, but it would change the scale of international business into something smaller than it is now. Which is maybe not a terrible thing. Might be a great trade-off.
