Vince Brannigan wrote:

: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.

Note that buying a better bicycle doesn't do anything for the economy,
either. Reinvesting to DEVELOP the better bicycle does that.
Speaking broadly, there is no difference between the production of
military goods and the production of consumer goods insofar as
economic growth is concerned.

:Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
:necessary. . 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 necessarily. It depends on what alternative use the resources
would have been put to.

:As many people pointed out the high
:expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
:bankrupted the country.

It certainly helped, but they were an extreme case. In the general
case, the dividing line for real economic damage is generally regarded
to be around 10% of GDP diverted to military spending. Note that the
Soviet Union FAR exceeded that level in real economic terms and it was
the BEST part of their economy being redirected, which heightens the
impact.

Explain Japan's economic problems, given that they spend a minuscule
amount on military development and procurement, if you believe this is
the root of economic problems.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney