If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Damaged the Budget Today | Wendy | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | December 24th 03 05:48 AM |