Hacker News Reader

Comment by mywittyname | Hacker News Reader

If that trillion dollar investment earns more than the cost of interest on it, then we are better off.

You seem to equating "military spending" with "lighting a mountain of money on fire", which is intellectually dishonest. To put things into perspective, a medium-sized military base will generate roughly $5 billion in economic activity and contribute to ~50,000 full time jobs. A trillion dollars is enough to put a new city on the map.

Military spending isn't limited to tanks, it also directly contributes to scientific research, technological advancement and improvements in manufacturing techniques.

View on HN

That may be true, but so does other form of spending, like funding space programs or just funding scientific research directly.

Agreed, but the OP said that giving a trillion dollars of borrowed money to the military would impoverish the nation in the long run.

My counter-argument is that that money will still find its way into places that truly drive economic, technological, and productivity growth. And if the ROI from that is greater than the cost of the debt, the nation will not be impoverished, but will be better off.

I agree that its not the most efficient means of investing in these things, but it is a way that has worked in the past.

A military base buys labor, technology, services, raw resources and produces defense/security. You're conflating what the military base spends with what it produces. (the point of the argument against GDP)

Just because I spend money on something, does not mean that I produce that thing, even if my spending increases demand for said good. That results in double counting production, which was already counted once by the seller.

Military spending also creates new technologies and improves economic productivity. Thus, it drives growth in the economy, not just through direct purchasing and salaries, but also by making traditional investments.

I'm not focusing on what is produced (in fact, I made an explicit statement to this effect), but on investments made that drive productivity growth (which is considered the most direct driver of economic growth). And if those investments made earn more than the costs of interest on the debt, then it's a net win for society.

But what if it's mostly domestic spending? The money spent for salaries flows in whatever those individuals need/desire to spend (groceries, barber shop, you name it).

The part of the trillion dollar injected in any economic activity in a closed system stays in that system.

(The part of that sum that is used to buy imports is another thing, although I guess it's far more complicated to properly account for)

Honestly, every time I think about this my mind just melts; I'll be really glad if somebody can clearly explain where is the catch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com