Please note: The Neutralist is posting the original work of Gavin Andresen from his blog, Gavinthink. You can see it on his blog here. He is worth reading on other subjects as well.
When economists talk about something being a "public good" they don't mean "nice stuff that the government does."
The definition of a public good is something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Or in non-econogeek-speak, stuff that doesn't run out no matter how many people use it, and stuff that benefits everybody whether they pay for it or not.
National defense is a public good. I'm not saying all national militaries are "good" -- I think lots of militaries around the world are evil and the world would be a better place without them. But the idea of national defense is a public good-- assuming you're pretty happy with your government and don't want Foreign Invaders to take over your country, everybody benefits from a national military standing guard and keeping you safe. And assuming the Foreign Invader Threat doesn't grow as your population grows, the same military can protect 100 thousand people as easily as it can protect 100 million.
National defense is non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
One funny thing about public goods is since they're non-rivalrous, you can serve more and more people while spending the same amount of money. But we don't do that; we spend more and more money on the military. In all the debates about "cutting" military spending the most radical proposals still keep spending at some constant percentage of GDP.
Why?
We should be able to get the same level of safety from Foreign Invaders with a constant level of military spending, no matter how large our population or economy grows. We'd all be much better off, and much safer, if we cut military spending by 90% and spent the money on just about anything else.
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Monday, August 01, 2011
The can has been kicked
Some defense spending cuts supposedly, but our guess is cosmetic. The faux conservatives say we need to control spending other than being able to drone-bomb and invade everywhere. That, of course means they are not truly serious.
Another episode of debt theater coming soon enough.
Another episode of debt theater coming soon enough.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Let's do Dresden again!
In my role as a normal, walking around human being (whatever that is?) I tend to agree with the Skeptical CPA. Heaven knows we need more auditors who are willing to use a jauniced eye.
When your man delves into foregn policy, he becomes a hide under the bed conservative where Iran is concerned. I then have to step into the phone booth and put on my Neutralist costume. He offends below,
I believe Ralph Peters shortly after 9/11 suggested the: US, Russia, India, Israel and China form an alliance to fight Jihadism. Imagine had this happened, the US and Russia could have presented Iran an ultimatum, replete with pictures of Dresden and Berlin: stop all nuclear activities or this is your fate, that of Germany in 1945. My guess, within a few weeks, Iran's military will have slaughtered its Mullahs and given US-Russian teams free reign to look at anything in Iran. Instead, the US kisses Saudi Arabia's arse.
Mr. Peters is a buffoon and thug. A buffoon because after the Soviet collapse, we made Russia promises that we broke and all of a sudden we say, hey let's be friends and they will buy it. A thug, because the proposal above is thuggish as was Dresden and Hiroshima.
The only part that makes sense is the part about where we kiss the Saudis. Then again, as a Neutralist, I do not want to kiss or kick any part of anyone's anatomy. Our save the world foreign policy is a big part of the reason we are going broke. Yet we continue to punch shadows. The Middle East, even Iran trying to get the big firecracker is no threat to us. Let me say it again, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranians do not have carrier fleets and couldn't sail them if they did. Even Iran doesn't have a real air force. It is the Middle East Powder Thimble.
Oh, and say we and the Russkies had given the ultimatum to Iran and they had said, go fry ice and we then fried them. We would have become what we are now, a rogue, failed state.
Yes, the Russians do want us to stay and chase our tail in Afghanistan. We dissipate our strength and keep their enemies occupied. Win Win for them. That is no reason for us to be there.
When your man delves into foregn policy, he becomes a hide under the bed conservative where Iran is concerned. I then have to step into the phone booth and put on my Neutralist costume. He offends below,
I believe Ralph Peters shortly after 9/11 suggested the: US, Russia, India, Israel and China form an alliance to fight Jihadism. Imagine had this happened, the US and Russia could have presented Iran an ultimatum, replete with pictures of Dresden and Berlin: stop all nuclear activities or this is your fate, that of Germany in 1945. My guess, within a few weeks, Iran's military will have slaughtered its Mullahs and given US-Russian teams free reign to look at anything in Iran. Instead, the US kisses Saudi Arabia's arse.
Mr. Peters is a buffoon and thug. A buffoon because after the Soviet collapse, we made Russia promises that we broke and all of a sudden we say, hey let's be friends and they will buy it. A thug, because the proposal above is thuggish as was Dresden and Hiroshima.
The only part that makes sense is the part about where we kiss the Saudis. Then again, as a Neutralist, I do not want to kiss or kick any part of anyone's anatomy. Our save the world foreign policy is a big part of the reason we are going broke. Yet we continue to punch shadows. The Middle East, even Iran trying to get the big firecracker is no threat to us. Let me say it again, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranians do not have carrier fleets and couldn't sail them if they did. Even Iran doesn't have a real air force. It is the Middle East Powder Thimble.
Oh, and say we and the Russkies had given the ultimatum to Iran and they had said, go fry ice and we then fried them. We would have become what we are now, a rogue, failed state.
Yes, the Russians do want us to stay and chase our tail in Afghanistan. We dissipate our strength and keep their enemies occupied. Win Win for them. That is no reason for us to be there.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
The Boondoggle Continues
I started reading Mike "Mish" Shedlock because I accidentally heard a podcast where he explained why we have not had roaring inflation despite Zimbabwe Ben's best efforts. It was the most cogent explanation I'd heard. Heck, it was the only reasonable voice on the matter that I had come across.
This, however, is not a blog about economics other than we espouse a foreign policy that does not bankrupt the nation. FP is not necessarily the remit of Mish's blog, but there is no resentment from us. Step on our toes anytime, Mr. Shedlock.
Anyway, Mish has been trading emails with a soldier over in Afghanistan. The soldier, BP pinged Mish,
You really need to do something on the waste of this war. Foreign contractors are everywhere you look.
KBR must have 4 civilians for every military member. There are a few American contractors but most seem to be Foreign nationals. Philippine nationals are everywhere. I'm sure they get paid peanuts so the KBR shareholders get their return.
Mish did some research on the question and quotes a Wapo article ,
The surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of up to 56,000 contractors, vastly expanding the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, said it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.
The CRS study says contractors made up 69 percent of the Pentagon's personnel in Afghanistan last December, a proportion that "apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the Defense Department in any conflict in the history of the United States."
He quotes James Howard Kunstler on the unwinnability of the war. I find some of Kunstler's stuff charming, especially his autobiographical vignettes, but he does not mention his y2k doomer stuff that did not pan out. Saying the war is unwinnable now is only evidence of sanity. Saying it in 2001 was wisdom.
Back to Mish. His words are dead on.
How many trillions have we wasted on "Star Wars" initiatives? Yet since the end of the cold war, the big threat never was nor ever will be, countries firing missiles at us. The big threat to the US so far has been improper security procedures on airplanes and schools.
Nut cases are everywhere. Proof enough can be found in the US when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were responsible for the Columbine High School massacre.
It's important to remember "terror" is a method. A war on terror makes no sense because one cannot win a war on a method.
Externally, the most important thing to note is the longer we meddle in the internal affairs of other countries the more enemies we make.
In spite of the fact that Iraq was never a strategic threat to the US, we wasted $694 billion there as noted in Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam. Add in future medical liabilities and money hidden elsewhere and the cost of Iraq easily exceeds $1 trillion. We can thank idiot Bush and Congressional morons for that mess.
Now Obama is about to throw more money down the Afghanistan black hole. Like Iraq, Afghanistan is another Vietnam. It will not cost as many lives but it is just as stupid and economically will cost as much if we stay for a few more years.
Why Do They Hate Us?
War mongers like to tout "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no they don't. If that was the reason, they would hate New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Germany, Iceland, and dozens of other countries.
They hate the US because ...
* We have troops in 150 countries
* We support corrupt regimes
* We needlessly meddle in the internal affairs of other countries
* We have a one-sided policy on Israel
* We are hypocrites on free trade and human rights
The more we keep troops all over the world, the more enemies we make. Eventually it will bankrupt us. The only sane solution is to declare the war won and leave, not just Afghanistan, but 149 other countries as well.
Mish will have to bear the burden of being awarded the not too much coveted Neutralist Article of the Month for January. It is a great post and we wish to recognize him now. Also, this spares us having to make the effort to think about other articles.
Congratulations, Mish.
This, however, is not a blog about economics other than we espouse a foreign policy that does not bankrupt the nation. FP is not necessarily the remit of Mish's blog, but there is no resentment from us. Step on our toes anytime, Mr. Shedlock.
Anyway, Mish has been trading emails with a soldier over in Afghanistan. The soldier, BP pinged Mish,
You really need to do something on the waste of this war. Foreign contractors are everywhere you look.
KBR must have 4 civilians for every military member. There are a few American contractors but most seem to be Foreign nationals. Philippine nationals are everywhere. I'm sure they get paid peanuts so the KBR shareholders get their return.
Mish did some research on the question and quotes a Wapo article ,
The surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of up to 56,000 contractors, vastly expanding the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, said it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.
The CRS study says contractors made up 69 percent of the Pentagon's personnel in Afghanistan last December, a proportion that "apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the Defense Department in any conflict in the history of the United States."
He quotes James Howard Kunstler on the unwinnability of the war. I find some of Kunstler's stuff charming, especially his autobiographical vignettes, but he does not mention his y2k doomer stuff that did not pan out. Saying the war is unwinnable now is only evidence of sanity. Saying it in 2001 was wisdom.
Back to Mish. His words are dead on.
How many trillions have we wasted on "Star Wars" initiatives? Yet since the end of the cold war, the big threat never was nor ever will be, countries firing missiles at us. The big threat to the US so far has been improper security procedures on airplanes and schools.
Nut cases are everywhere. Proof enough can be found in the US when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were responsible for the Columbine High School massacre.
It's important to remember "terror" is a method. A war on terror makes no sense because one cannot win a war on a method.
Externally, the most important thing to note is the longer we meddle in the internal affairs of other countries the more enemies we make.
In spite of the fact that Iraq was never a strategic threat to the US, we wasted $694 billion there as noted in Cost of Iraq war will surpass Vietnam. Add in future medical liabilities and money hidden elsewhere and the cost of Iraq easily exceeds $1 trillion. We can thank idiot Bush and Congressional morons for that mess.
Now Obama is about to throw more money down the Afghanistan black hole. Like Iraq, Afghanistan is another Vietnam. It will not cost as many lives but it is just as stupid and economically will cost as much if we stay for a few more years.
Why Do They Hate Us?
War mongers like to tout "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no they don't. If that was the reason, they would hate New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Germany, Iceland, and dozens of other countries.
They hate the US because ...
* We have troops in 150 countries
* We support corrupt regimes
* We needlessly meddle in the internal affairs of other countries
* We have a one-sided policy on Israel
* We are hypocrites on free trade and human rights
The more we keep troops all over the world, the more enemies we make. Eventually it will bankrupt us. The only sane solution is to declare the war won and leave, not just Afghanistan, but 149 other countries as well.
Mish will have to bear the burden of being awarded the not too much coveted Neutralist Article of the Month for January. It is a great post and we wish to recognize him now. Also, this spares us having to make the effort to think about other articles.
Congratulations, Mish.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Who needs the Russkies? We can do it to ourselves.
My prior post about not bugging the Russians has caused me to ask a question. Towards the end of the cold war it is said that we increased our defense budget and instituted Star Wars in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union.
So now (referring again to previously cited Fabius Maximus post) we are bugging Les Russes. I hope it is not with the intention of causing them to file the international equivalent of Chapter 11.
If that is the thought, or even if it is not the thought, considering their natural resource situation and our inept treasury and fed, we might ask who is going to bankrupt whom.
So now (referring again to previously cited Fabius Maximus post) we are bugging Les Russes. I hope it is not with the intention of causing them to file the international equivalent of Chapter 11.
If that is the thought, or even if it is not the thought, considering their natural resource situation and our inept treasury and fed, we might ask who is going to bankrupt whom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
