Also, the immigration system seems less broken for smart people to emigrate to Germany. Could probably get the best global talent as well.
Also, the immigration system seems less broken for smart people to emigrate to Germany. Could probably get the best global talent as well.
Every dollar spent "investing" in military r&d, Is one less dollar that can be invested elsewhere.
Why not just invest all that money directly into the economy instead of doing it in an extremely roundabout way.
Or, I don't know, just pay people to dig holes and fill them back up again, if you believe in the idea of economic "stimulus".
"War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world. "
However, what i do not know is how much of US military spending is on R&D
Example: GPS was invented by the military. But you could have a different government organization work on all the useful stuff that comes out of the military that has nothing to do with blowing people up.
You could also argue that if you invest trillions of dollars into digging holes, that might result in useful technology. Taking the example of GPS, maybe you need to very accurately know what your position is, so that you can pinpoint exactly where you want the hole to be built.
My hole digging government department could have invented GPS too!
Military needs a way to position vehicles, you get gps, same goed for arpanet. A good chunk of military inventions are done by civilians on military funding.
I think it is the desire in US military to be always on the bleeding edge, and the accountability that it brings. There is also less pressure for profit, I guess.
You said digging holes, elon musk is doing that boring job :)
No, it's not. With investment in military R&D, there's no "broken window." Claiming that destruction in one place (aka war) spurs growth is the broken window fallacy.
It's possible that investment "directly into the economy" might be more effective except for the fact that you have to take the money out of the economy and put it into a few peoples' hands to direct. The fewer hands means the easier it is to corrupt or hijack the process. I'd rather for "the economy" to invest on its own.
As Hayek said, I want "plans by the many not by the few."
I wasn't suggesting redistributing money from one company to another.
I was suggesting having some sort of government agency, that spends trillions of dollars a year on doing all those R&D things that the military does that have nothing to do with blowing people up.
Literally just "The military, minus the guns, bombs, fighter jets, and everything else that involves killing people".
That wouldn't be perfect, but for the purpose of making the economy/world a better place, such a "not killing people military" seems like it would be strictly better than our current military.
Further, many large scale tech advancements have come from military R&D, originally with the goal of blowing people up, preventing them from getting blown up, or making them recover after the fact. Everything from the Internet to GPS to microwave to many synthetic fabrics to emergency medicine.
I agree that investing in things that don't kill people is great and should be encouraged. It's just outside the scope of government.
1 - https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spendi...
What I mean by that is that yes, the US likely benefited from investing trillions of dollars in the military. But it could've also benefited, perhaps even more so, if it had invested trillions of dollars in infrastructure. This would have made it easier and cheaper for businesses to ship their products across the states, as well as creating a lot of blue collar people jobs. Perhaps the same would be true if the US invested trillions of taxpayer dollars in other industries, too (healthcare, manufacturing, solar industry, etc).
These are sometimes covert handouts though inflated costs.
> But it could've also benefited, perhaps even more so, if it had invested trillions of dollars in infrastructure
...still, military power and influence plays a big part part in international negotiation.
I would also say that a lot of the military budget is being wasted on unnecessary wars, so that money doesn't really go into "strengthening US military" either. It's being thrown away in the Middle East.
- it's likely that significant part of the spend would go to the US and hence not really help the German economy
- recent European (and also US) military projects were pretty much a disaster (the A400M being a point in case). Not that this would be much different in other countries but it leaves you wondering how effective it really is to spend money on the military rather than proven ROI-positive investments such as education
Edit: Also, it's not like Germany would really struggle economically ;-)
_Buying_ more weapons than you need to defend yourself on the other hand is a terrible investment. If they just sit around and aren't used against someone (or at least the threat of you using them gets you something) is a colossal waste of money.
Considering the German society is overall very pacifist, I don't see how buying more weapons (if even they build them within Germany) gets them much of anything.
Those arms will kill somebody.
It will even kill you in some years, once the friendly country you sold your arms to is no longer friendly.