tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post1584600994933254978..comments2024-02-23T03:29:54.261-05:00Comments on The Unreligious Right: Cutting Defense in WartimeUNRRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-66409277320964214062009-02-02T22:06:00.000-05:002009-02-02T22:06:00.000-05:00The problem in Afghanistan, whatever it was caused...The problem in Afghanistan, whatever it was caused by, had nothing to do with insufficient military spending. US spending in Afghanistan is about 0.2% of GDP. Many people on both the left and the right have called for more, but it won't be much more as a percentage of current military spending. It's certainly consistent with cutting programs like new submarines and fighter planes, which are tools of total war rather than war on terrorism.<BR/><BR/>As for domestic stimulus, I know that there have been stimulus skeptics. What I'm saying is different: no economist that I know of has said that military stimulus is better than domestic spending. In fact, Robert Barro, the conservative economist I referred to in my first comment, derives his stimulus skepticism from the relative ineffectiveness of WW1, WW2, and Korea in boosting GDP. (It's actually Krugman who argues that WW2 was effective stimulus).Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-73692490775973926222009-02-02T06:05:00.000-05:002009-02-02T06:05:00.000-05:00The US wasn't underprepared for WW2.I would actual...<I>The US wasn't underprepared for WW2.</I><BR/><BR/>I would actually contest that. I can't think of a single aircraft it had in service when it entered the war that outclassed anything in the Luftwaffe. Considering the US entered the war in 1941 and didn't start its bombing campaign in Europe until early '43, I wouldn't exactly call that being on the ball. Having said that, it was clearly in better shape than it was at the beginning of WWI.FrodoSaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15224011199139875343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-3183517623185453022009-02-01T22:59:00.000-05:002009-02-01T22:59:00.000-05:00"The US wasn't underprepared for WW2.&quo..."The US wasn't underprepared for WW2."<BR/><BR/>That's because we had learned some lessons from what happened with WWI. And we had already ramped up our military readiness & industrial production before Japan attacked.<BR/><BR/>"Nor was it underprepared for the war in Afghanistan"<BR/><BR/>It's still going on. We were prepared for quick strikes, not extended deployments.<BR/><BR/>"Conversely, the most spectacular failure of the US military, Vietnam, occurred when peacetime defense spending was 9% of GDP."<BR/><BR/>Again, there's no correlation there. There were all sorts of reasons for failure in Vietnam.<BR/><BR/>" The economic argument for spending more domestically is separate, and as far as I can tell has not been challenged by any major economist."<BR/><BR/>It's been challenged by a whole bunch of them. You might want to take another look at HOT5 1/31/2009 item 1, which has links. She noted three economics nobel winners right in the main article. You think they don't count or something?UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-58330875049632707342009-02-01T21:52:00.000-05:002009-02-01T21:52:00.000-05:00The US wasn't underprepared for WW2. Nor was it un...The US wasn't underprepared for WW2. Nor was it underprepared for the war in Afghanistan, which it executed with remarkable success even after 10 years when defense spending was at a postwar low of 3% of GDP. Conversely, the most spectacular failure of the US military, Vietnam, occurred when peacetime defense spending was 9% of GDP.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, that's a strategic argument. The economic argument for spending more domestically is separate, and as far as I can tell has not been challenged by any major economist.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-40056769803734087952009-02-01T08:19:00.000-05:002009-02-01T08:19:00.000-05:00FrodoSaves,The military wastes tons of money, no d...FrodoSaves,<BR/><BR/>The military wastes tons of money, no doubt. It's run by the government and therefore by definition is incredibly inefficient. I'm not opposed to cutting waste at the Pentagon -- just to the idea that we are going to cut the military budget while wasting ridiculous amounts of money on less important things. And that we are going to cut it while at the same time being told that we must spend insane amounts to stimulate the economy.<BR/><BR/>Alon,<BR/><BR/>The U.S. military of today is not comparable to that of 100 years ago, and the current situation isn't comparable, and that goes for the government as well. Our tiny military was part of a tiny government by today's standards. The pre-World War I period is a particularly bad example, and certainly not a situation we ever want to be in again. We were woefully unprepared for WWI and couldn't even equip our own forces without relying on France and Britain. As for low intensity conflicts not requiring many resources, that's obviously not true any more. <BR/><BR/>The current force is a high tech instrument that relies on extremely expensive equipment, which in turn minimizes human losses. In general though, I find any kind of economic determinist arguments extremely weak, especially when applied to military affairs.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-73118116720419833112009-02-01T05:53:00.000-05:002009-02-01T05:53:00.000-05:00This isn't peacetime.By the standards of total war...<I>This isn't peacetime.</I><BR/><BR/>By the standards of total war, it is. Low-intensity conflict rarely requires many resources; the US managed wars in Latin America in the early 1900s with the same military spending as Bulgaria. Even today, Iraq and Afghanistan require about $130 billion per year. The budget cut plans are to the regular Pentagon budget, which is unrelated and is worth $520 billion, already higher as a percentage of GDP than at any point before 1939 outside WW1, the Civil War, etc.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-72008048337310120732009-02-01T03:06:00.000-05:002009-02-01T03:06:00.000-05:00I do agree that a cut in defense spending is not w...I do agree that a cut in defense spending is not what's needed, but I wonder if it was just a tactic to make sure the military doesn't get complacent with its spending. I've no idea how efficient they spend their money, but as with any organization that large, there's going to be some wasteful use of money.FrodoSaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15224011199139875343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-57572636472608513472009-01-31T17:44:00.000-05:002009-01-31T17:44:00.000-05:00"And as Paul Kennedy has noted, a country improves..."And as Paul Kennedy has noted, a country improves its chances to win a total war if it keeps peacetime military spending low."<BR/><BR/>This isn't peacetime.<BR/><BR/>"For example, the US spent 1% of its GDP on defense between the world wars; when WW2 broke out, it quickly raised it to 37%, far outmatching the Axis."<BR/><BR/>That sounds like a correlation doesn't equal causation situation.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-30718206811151030072009-01-31T16:08:00.000-05:002009-01-31T16:08:00.000-05:00So why would we want to cut the military, even jus...<I>So why would we want to cut the military, even just considering economic reasons? The military employs millions, and generates huge numbers of jobs in the private sector.</I><BR/><BR/>Military spending has an extremely low multiplier. One conservative economist trying to discredit the Obama stimulus went back to wartime stimuli in WW1, WW2, and Korea, and computed a multiplier of 0.8. For tax cuts and domestic spending, most accepted figures range from just under 1 to about 2.<BR/><BR/>And as Paul Kennedy has noted, a country improves its chances to win a total war if it keeps peacetime military spending low. For example, the US spent 1% of its GDP on defense between the world wars; when WW2 broke out, it quickly raised it to 37%, far outmatching the Axis.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.com