Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...

Fred J. McCall wrote:


Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.

It might, but it doesn't.




The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
necessary. .


Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working,

you can keep folks "working" as prison guards, but it doesnt make crime
"productive" Producte work produces new goods, service and human
capital that supports future productivity. Now being 'unproductive"
does not in and of itself make an expenditure wrong. as adam smith
said the whole end of society is consumption, productivity is a means ot
an end.

GDP is the sum of products and *services*; those prison guards provide
a required service, and their contribution is indeed reflected in the
GDP.


and new products
rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
GDP, if you had not noticed).

Selling weapons overses is not unproductive in terms of the GDP.
howeverif it was a good busness decison, comapnies woudl fund the R& D
themselves. Tehy dont becsue it sint. it does reduce the loss but it
does nto turn it into a productive investment.

The major reason they don't is that they can't *afford* that kind of
capital investment--only governments can. And governements do so
because (a) they need the service, and (b) they realize they will
receive some degree of return on the investment in the long run.



The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you

spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
military, the less the GDP.


Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.


Not on net.. you only add to the GDP if tge investment iws greater than
the opportunity cost. its liek borrowing money at 10 percent to ivest
at 5 percent. you dont get to count just the profit.

I would strongly suspect that the F-16, which has sold less than half
its total production to the USAF (the remainder going to foreign
sales), and then seen a significant number of its own early build
aircraft resold or leased to other nations, would likely come out on
the plus side, especially when the attendant services, rebuilds, and
modifications are included.


if weapons exports were a good business, comanies would and used to go
into the business. they are not a very good busness anymore. which is
why companies rely on start up purchases by government ot fund the
overhead cost.

They do so because the development costs are too high and thee risk
too great for any entity other than a government to be able to handle
it.


It has cost the USA over 10 Billion dollars in development costs for the
V-22. At the moment its as productive as a non working bicycle lock.
Even if it works it is unclear that the investment will ever be recoved
in any way shape or form.

Trust you to bring the Osprey into the mix. Are you prepared to bet
your life's savings that the civil version built by AB won't be a
moneymaker? And BTW, it has flown, and it does have firm orders on the
books.

Brooks



Vince