Fred J. McCall wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:

:Ceesco wrote:
: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.
:
: What part of "spending as a percentage of GDP" do you clearly not get?
:
:What part of current verus future GDP did you not get? Every dollar
:spend on the military means a lwoer GDP in the future.

As does every dollar spent on consumer goods.

not on durable goods, nor on the facilties needed to produce ccosnnumer
goods and services. Its not a very complicated concept. The
relationship of wealth and consumption is the heart or economics

military productio9n is esentially "current consumption" either it
crowds out current civilain consumption (guns v butter) ro it crowds out
future consumption (investment verusus consumption


Vince



Of course, that means
that all we should be producing is equipment to produce more equipment
to produce things, by your reasoning. How long do you think THAT can
sustain itself?

: Want to take a guess at Soviet GDP figures and the percentage spent on
: military applications?
:
:My sources tell me it approach 30 % but htat all analysis of Soviet GDP
:are complicated by the lack of a national accounts system/

In numbers it was lower than that, but once you take into account that
the highest quality portions of their economy were dedicated to
defense spending, the number you give is probably not far wrong.