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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote: You want to debate the morality of weapons development, find somebody else. The issue here was the impact of defense spending upon the GDP. The point is complex but connected. lets say you use your bicycle to deliver a load of bolt cutters to your local bicycle thieves and therefore have to spend your income from delivering the boltcutters on a better lock. you can work very hard but never live any better. Vince |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote: Vince Brannigan wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: You want to debate the morality of weapons development, find somebody else. The issue here was the impact of defense spending upon the GDP. The point is complex but connected. lets say you use your bicycle to deliver a load of bolt cutters to your local bicycle thieves and therefore have to spend your income from delivering the boltcutters on a better lock. you can work very hard but never live any better. Vince Stop wandering away from the argument at hand, which was not about bikes or boltcutters, but about the GDP, which, contrary to your claim, can be contributed to by defense expenditure. Defense expenditure is what brought you this medium to debate the issue within, for gosh sakes. nonsense The same money spent in the civilian side is simply much more productive. If command economies worked to increase productivity, communism would work. The DOD is a command economy. Command economies are very good ways to organize consumption of public goods. e.g. national parks or the navy. There is simply no evidence that they are equally effective at increasing productivity. As I pointed out the Arpa program was simply a way of funneling money into a civilian research infrastructure. If military psendign was productive peopel would orgianze comapneis and go into the business. its isnt, primarily becsue so much of the money is inevitably spent on useless activites. Anytine you take stored wealth and convert it into "something" you technically increase the GDP by the expenditure. but unlesss the expenditure creates somethign that produces a further streaem of goods and services, it is merely consumption. Vince Vince |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote: 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. so is the value of owner occupied housing OWNER OCCUPIED: A building or residence (especially a house) that is occupied or lived in by those who have legal ownership. The direct contrast to owner occupied is a rental unit. This term tends to surface most often in the study of economics when calculating Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In particular, the estimated rent on owner occupied housing is calculated by the folks at the Bureau of Economic Analysis and included in value of GDP. http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls_s...owner+occupied there is a difference however between 1) the contribution of building a house (productive investment) 2) living in the house. (consumption of the stream of services produced by the asset) 3) burning down the house and rebuilding it. To use a famous example. If I throw a brick through a window and a glazier repairs it for $200 that $200 goes into the GDP, but we are no better off since we lost the "wealth" Throwing bricks through windows is an unproductive act even though it increases the GDP so some activities in the GDP are investment,(increae future GDP) some are consumption ( no affect on future gdp) and some are stupid (reduce future GDP) Vince 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. 12 billion in subsidized investment would normally produce a sure thing. be my guest and invest in "osprey civil spin off" if you like The maryland lottery is a better investment. Vince |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote: 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. so is the value of owner occupied housing No. Since we always have to remind Lawyers & pychologists that Prison guards don't live in houses, they live in the Big House, which don't even have backdoors, so they be occupied, since they're on work release. OWNER OCCUPIED: A building or residence (especially a house) that is occupied or lived in by those who have legal ownership. The direct contrast to owner occupied is a rental unit. This term tends to surface most often in the study of economics when calculating Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In particular, the estimated rent on owner occupied housing is calculated by the folks at the Bureau of Economic Analysis and included in value of GDP. http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls_s...owner+occupied there is a difference however between 1) the contribution of building a house (productive investment) 2) living in the house. (consumption of the stream of services produced by the asset) 3) burning down the house and rebuilding it. To use a famous example. If I throw a brick through a window and a glazier repairs it for $200 that $200 goes into the GDP, but we are no better off since we lost the "wealth" Throwing bricks through windows is an unproductive act even though it increases the GDP Throwing bricks through the *right* window is an enormously productive and profitable buisness. But nobody ever expected anti-gun Lawyers, to know anything about either glass, bullets, or intelligence. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Kevin
Brooks writes Vince Brannigan wrote in message ... 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. That's one example. How many F-101s, F-102s, F-105s or F-106s were exported? (The Lightweight Fighter Mafia would claim that the USAF had to be forced to buy F-16s at gunpoint, but then I disagree with them too) Also, the "export sale" argument is open to some argument. US FMS is a killer in the export market, simply because the US is often willing to effectively _pay_ customers to accept platforms (that will then be tied to US suppliers for spares, support and reloads). 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? My own gut feeling is that it won't succeed in the US, and will be marginal elsewhere. What does it do in the civil sector that beats a helo for VTOL or a puddlejumper for STOVL? When "real performance on a hot day" hits payload needs, I'm not sure the Osprey delivers (to say nothing of casual short-notice air travel over city centres... is that safe?) And BTW, it has flown, and it does have firm orders on the books. Thirty years ago, so did Concorde. Everything worked technically, but there was no market pull for mass production. There just aren't that many people who will pay to halve their trans-Atlantic flight time, now or then, to justify more than a few prototypes.. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam |
|
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 |