Is our Military Profitable?

[Amplifier]

Does American as a whole benifit from our military presence economically. In the other post I saw we spend $437.111 Billion on defense. So are we making any of that money back?

Does the US get special trade rights by having such a large military?

Do we get any money back from the countries we help out? (does Kuwait give us any discounts on Oil).

I really haven't seen a serious discussion of this anywhere. Please no comments on how having a large military protects us, etc.

If you know of any instances where the US has benifited economically from our military please post them, I'm very curious.

 

[CanOWorms]

I feel so in some regards. Military research & policies has fostered and allowed the development of many technologies.

 

[Infohawk]

I think any honest economic liberal (this doens't mean liberal like PETA, but liberal like the Austrian school (i.e., believing in free markets)) would have to say the economy isn't benefiting from dumping money into the military (excluding protection which is off-limits of course). It is the equivalent of a soviet program to boost production of steel. Sure, some advancements might be incidental and we might have more steel and jobs (like military spending creates jobs), but letting the money go where it really wants to go would be more efficient.

 

[Dissipate]

No, we do not benefit economically from the military. In fact, the military is a detriment to the economy. It diverts resources from real consumer demands/wants to an artificially created and subsidized industry.

 

[K1052]

No, not directly at least. Lots of that money is paid to US owned companies so it is not like the money is leaving the us econonomic system.

Having a military is still a necessity and, as an American, I certainly don?t mind that we currently have the most advanced/powerful one in the world.

I have no problem paying for that via taxes.

 

[0roo0roo]

its like calculating if life or health insurance is profitable isn't it

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, we do not benefit economically from the military. In fact, the military is a detriment to the economy. It diverts resources from real consumer demands/wants to an artificially created and subsidized industry.

Prove it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: K1052
No, not directly at least. Lots of that money is paid to US owned companies so it is not like the money is leaving the us econonomic system.

Having a military is still a necessity and, as an American, I certainly don?t mind that we currently have the most advanced/powerful one in the world.

I have no problem paying for that via taxes.

Having a military that provokes conflicts all over the world and is run by an extremely wasteful centrally planned bureaucracy is a necessity? This is not a production of 'goods' as you make it out to be, on the contrary, I would call this a production of 'bads.'

Why don't you have a problem paying for the military with taxes? I am assuming that most of the things you consume you would have a problem paying for with taxes (imagine a car wash that was run by the government). I'm curious as to why you make an exception for defense, especially since it is not 'defense' that the military is providing.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, we do not benefit economically from the military. In fact, the military is a detriment to the economy. It diverts resources from real consumer demands/wants to an artificially created and subsidized industry.

Prove it.

Ok. I am consumer Bob. I want to send my kid to college, or buy a better car or maybe a bigger house. Government comes along and says "No Bob, you are going to send G.I. Joe to Iraq instead."

So what happens? Instead of me (consumer Bob) being able to purchase what I want, I am instead forced to let the government produce something that I never wanted. As a sidenote, this also means that those involved in the production of the warfare state are no longer involved in producing things that consumers 'really' want. They might as well be on the beach building sand castles, disregarding the fact that what they are actually producing are 'bads,' since they are actually going to foreign lands and provoking conflicts.

 

[glenn1]

Does American as a whole benifit from our military presence economically. In the other post I saw we spend $437.111 Billion on defense. So are we making any of that money back?

It's a cost but one that's worthwhile to spend the money on. Nations which don't spend money on defensive armies don't generally fare well, for an example look at what the U.S. with it's army did to proto-nations such as the Iroqois. Yeah, $437 billion is a lot of money to spend but I'd daresay it's a lot less than it would take to buy back California and Arizona if we didn't defend them and they were taken over.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Does American as a whole benifit from our military presence economically. In the other post I saw we spend $437.111 Billion on defense. So are we making any of that money back?

It's a cost but one that's worthwhile to spend the money on. Nations which don't spend money on defensive armies don't generally fare well, for an example look at what the U.S. with it's army did to proto-nations such as the Iroqois. Yeah, $437 billion is a lot of money to spend but I'd daresay it's a lot less than it would take to buy back California and Arizona if we didn't defend them and they were taken over.

What? Who would invade California, even if you had 1/10th of your current military?

 

[glenn1]

What? Who would invade California, even if you had 1/10th of your current military?

I didn't think the issue was the amount we spend, just that we spend anything at all.

And as for who would invade, that's kind of a chicken-and-egg question - no one would invade since we do have a strong military. Kuwait probably didn't think they'd be invaded before it happened to them, just as the U.S. wasn't think the Japanese would attempt to pre-emptively strike at our Pacific Fleet before Pearl Harbor happened.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: K1052
No, not directly at least. Lots of that money is paid to US owned companies so it is not like the money is leaving the us econonomic system.

Having a military is still a necessity and, as an American, I certainly don?t mind that we currently have the most advanced/powerful one in the world.

I have no problem paying for that via taxes.

Having a military that provokes conflicts all over the world and is run by an extremely wasteful centrally planned bureaucracy is a necessity? This is not a production of 'goods' as you make it out to be, on the contrary, I would call this a production of 'bads.'

Why don't you have a problem paying for the military with taxes? I am assuming that most of the things you consume you would have a problem paying for with taxes (imagine a car wash that was run by the government). I'm curious as to why you make an exception for defense, especially since it is not 'defense' that the military is providing.

A centralized military under the control of the national government has been a necessity and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. It is a requirement for us to deal on par with other powerful nations in the world.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What? Who would invade California, even if you had 1/10th of your current military?

I didn't think the issue was the amount we spend, just that we spend anything at all.

And as for who would invade, that's kind of a chicken-and-egg question - no one would invade since we do have a strong military. Kuwait probably didn't think they'd be invaded before it happened to them, just as the U.S. wasn't think the Japanese would attempt to pre-emptively strike at our Pacific Fleet before Pearl Harbor happened.

I'm dead serious. If anyone attempted to invade california they'd get a nuke straight up somewhere uncomfortable.

Besides, that still doesn't explain your military spending.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Does American as a whole benifit from our military presence economically. In the other post I saw we spend $437.111 Billion on defense. So are we making any of that money back?

It's a cost but one that's worthwhile to spend the money on. Nations which don't spend money on defensive armies don't generally fare well, for an example look at what the U.S. with it's army did to proto-nations such as the Iroqois. Yeah, $437 billion is a lot of money to spend but I'd daresay it's a lot less than it would take to buy back California and Arizona if we didn't defend them and they were taken over.

I can't see California taken over by anyone except by those who were formerly american and wanted to get AWAY from america. Not a foreign country.

America without california is a negligable rump of a once proud country anyhow.
(assuming new england got fed up also which from what it sounds like from locals here on my trip to NYC seems to be the case also)
Just shed the useless fanatical tax-draining red-state part in the middle and let them start United States of Jesusland or something. we can start a new sport in the olympics for them of chewing tobacco or something. :laugh:

Or maybe a marathon for them running from revenge seeking minoritys and gays.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Topic Title: Is our Military Profitable?

Apparently not, otherwise no one would be crying about a deficit.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: K1052
No, not directly at least. Lots of that money is paid to US owned companies so it is not like the money is leaving the us econonomic system.

Having a military is still a necessity and, as an American, I certainly don?t mind that we currently have the most advanced/powerful one in the world.

I have no problem paying for that via taxes.

Having a military that provokes conflicts all over the world and is run by an extremely wasteful centrally planned bureaucracy is a necessity? This is not a production of 'goods' as you make it out to be, on the contrary, I would call this a production of 'bads.'

Why don't you have a problem paying for the military with taxes? I am assuming that most of the things you consume you would have a problem paying for with taxes (imagine a car wash that was run by the government). I'm curious as to why you make an exception for defense, especially since it is not 'defense' that the military is providing.

A centralized military under the control of the national government has been a necessity and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. It is a requirement for us to deal on par with other powerful nations in the world.

Why isn't centralized bubble gum, toothpick, car or TV production a necesscity then? I'm failing to see any support for your assertions.

 

[conehead433]

Well if you're an oil company or Halliburton or G.W. Bush and company it sure looks like it does.

 

[Amplifier]

Just to bring you guys some perspective. The share per year each American takes on with regards to military spending is approximately $1,500.

So from that can we more simply quantify some costs?

How much more would shipping cost if we weren't supported by a super powerful navy for example?

I'd like some solid numbers so I could better understand this topic.

 

[glenn1]

I'm dead serious. If anyone attempted to invade california they'd get a nuke straight up somewhere uncomfortable.

You're proving my point. Nuclear weapons aren't exactly a profit center for the U.S. government. If we impose a standard of profitability on the military then all those gee-whiz weapons like nukes wouldn't be there anymore to stick up somewhere uncomfortable. So obviously you agree that there is a utility to having a military even if it is not a "profitable" activity for government, that just turns this into a question about how much money should be spent. I don't think anyone here will necessarily disagree that $437B isn't a huge amount and in an ideal world that figure would be several orders of magnitude lower.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: K1052
No, not directly at least. Lots of that money is paid to US owned companies so it is not like the money is leaving the us econonomic system.

Having a military is still a necessity and, as an American, I certainly don?t mind that we currently have the most advanced/powerful one in the world.

I have no problem paying for that via taxes.

Having a military that provokes conflicts all over the world and is run by an extremely wasteful centrally planned bureaucracy is a necessity? This is not a production of 'goods' as you make it out to be, on the contrary, I would call this a production of 'bads.'

Why don't you have a problem paying for the military with taxes? I am assuming that most of the things you consume you would have a problem paying for with taxes (imagine a car wash that was run by the government). I'm curious as to why you make an exception for defense, especially since it is not 'defense' that the military is providing.

A centralized military under the control of the national government has been a necessity and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. It is a requirement for us to deal on par with other powerful nations in the world.

Why isn't centralized bubble gum, toothpick, car or TV production a necesscity then? I'm failing to see any support for your assertions.

Because private industry is more than capable of running those endeavors and state owned businesses are a bad idea.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I'm dead serious. If anyone attempted to invade california they'd get a nuke straight up somewhere uncomfortable.

You're proving my point. Nuclear weapons aren't exactly a profit center for the U.S. government. If we impose a standard of profitability on the military then all those gee-whiz weapons like nukes wouldn't be there anymore to stick up somewhere uncomfortable. So obviously you agree that there is a utility to having a military even if it is not a "profitable" activity for government, that just turns this into a question about how much money should be spent. I don't think anyone here will necessarily disagree that $437B isn't a huge amount and in an ideal world that figure would be several orders of magnitude lower.

Yes, a military is need. Or rather, a retaliatory system, like nukes, is needed. The way prisons are needed.

 

[glenn1]

I can't see California taken over by anyone except by those who were formerly american and wanted to get AWAY from america. Not a foreign country.

America without california is a negligable rump of a once proud country anyhow.
(assuming new england got fed up also which from what it sounds like from locals here on my trip to NYC seems to be the case also)
Just shed the useless fanatical tax-draining red-state part in the middle and let them start United States of Jesusland or something. we can start a new sport in the olympics for them of chewing tobacco or something

My example doesn't only work with California. The "replacement cost" for any state would be a lot higher than $437B. As far as America without California being a "neglible rump of a once proud country" and the rest being "useless," I know when I lived out there, the whole population of the Golden State weren't jerks about the rest of the nation like you're being.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Does American as a whole benifit from our military presence economically. In the other post I saw we spend $437.111 Billion on defense. So are we making any of that money back?

Does the US get special trade rights by having such a large military?

Do we get any money back from the countries we help out? (does Kuwait give us any discounts on Oil).

I really haven't seen a serious discussion of this anywhere. Please no comments on how having a large military protects us, etc.

If you know of any instances where the US has benifited economically from our military please post them, I'm very curious.

I'm sure the rich guys are making out like bandits. I'm not quite so optimistic about the rest of us peons.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Just to bring you guys some perspective. The share per year each American takes on with regards to military spending is approximately $1,500.

So from that can we more simply quantify some costs?

How much more would shipping cost if we weren't supported by a super powerful navy for example?

I'd like some solid numbers so I could better understand on this topic.

Well, in my house, that's $4500 I'd rather have back.