One thing to keep in mind is that defense spending tends to rely heavily on local provision. You generally can't just import soldiers, and keeping military-industrial supply chains local or at minimum trusted is also a requirement. So using something like a PPP-adjusted figure rather than a nominal figure is probably going to be closer to what you're actually buying, and that rather considerably diminishes the difference.
Given current data, China’s military expenditure in PPP terms is estimated to be $541 billion, or 59% of US spending, and its equipment levels are only 42% of US levels. Comparing trends over time shows that the US has matched China in recent years, albeit at the cost of a much higher defence burden.
The underlying mechanism here is that China has a lot of people who will work for rather-lower wages than in the US, which means that each nominal dollar China budgets for their military can buy them more military capacity than in the US, via taking advantage of those lower wages.
If the US had a large supply of workers willing to work at Chinese wages, and could use them to drive its military and military-industrial system, that wouldn't be a factor.
Isn't the USA numbers very skewed because they include like healthcare and pensions in their numbers, even for former soldiers, while say europeans don't?
Also, (and I'm no kind of expert) it seems there's a lot of graft involved in the spending, such as $67 charged for a screw, and that kind of thing. A good bit of it due to a kickback-type arrangement between the politicians involved (think Dick Cheney) and the defense contractors who get awarded the deals.
Some of those "$50 screw" numbers come from cancelling projects with high total cost. A contract might be paid to produce a thousand of something and get cancelled after making 10 of them, inflating the per unit cost by a ton
The Army manual says that screw must meet X, Y, and Z specs. If you don't have the tooling for those exact specs, you're going to charge more to make up the cost of retooling.
Of course there's grift and plain foolishness. Local base Commander paid a painter I knew to stop work for two weeks and screw around waiting for his commander to visit. Wanted the boss to see the painters in action, look busy.
Speaking of specs, there are old rules that never changed. Worked at a print shop where a standard 24x36" blueprint was $.63. Nope. Navy had to have the final set of plans printed on plastic media, $3/page. Now multiply by 150 for a modest set of prints.
i was mentioning the 62billion out of the 900billion/year. its seems very small if you think about how many service members(enlisted and officers) + thier families.
Hold up. I see three NATO countries in that top-spending list, yet Trump is crying that they don't spend enough? It seems, as everyone seems to agree, that the problem is the US spends way too much. But since US "defense" spending is an obvious grift to shift public money to private pockets this isn't too surprising.
And it virtually only ever goes up. More and more of our labor is going towards feeding the imperial war machine, while social services are gutted. Our corrupt politicians just want to line the pockets of the corporations that make bombs, and they start conflicts around the globe to justify it. The primary function of the military is essentially money laundering, to channel public funds into private hands.
We don't really fight wars like the ancients did, which is a good thing. Back then, it was total war with either wholesale enslavement of the population, or killing whoever you could get your hands on, then salting all arable land to kill off whoever was left, and to ensure nobody could live there for centuries.
It was brutally effective and completely wiped entire civilizations off the map.
its "necessary" once you figure out that when people get tired of the complications caused by it, they are willing to use the military to quash discent on behalf of the elite class, to maintain control.
all i know is, i play warhammer total war 3 a lot. and when my skavens are starving and start an uprising, i just send a lord with his army to quash the discenters, and maintain control.
This is the weirdest justification to me. Military spending is for specific purposes. Like, if your hostile neighbor has twice the population as you and spends X dollars, then you don't spend 0.5 * X dollars. You're probably going to end up with higher spending per capita in order to reach parity. So why on earth would we compare by capita?
I think it's a somewhat credible theory I've heard that a large portion of our "defense" spending goes towards larger and larger bribes to countries around the world either to not go to war or to maintain trade relations with the United States in order to maintain U.S. hegemony.
58 Comments
tal@lemmy.today · 41 pts · 308d
One thing to keep in mind is that defense spending tends to rely heavily on local provision. You generally can't just import soldiers, and keeping military-industrial supply chains local or at minimum trusted is also a requirement. So using something like a PPP-adjusted figure rather than a nominal figure is probably going to be closer to what you're actually buying, and that rather considerably diminishes the difference.
kagis for someone discussing the matter
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinas-military-rise-comparative-military-spending-china-and-us
The underlying mechanism here is that China has a lot of people who will work for rather-lower wages than in the US, which means that each nominal dollar China budgets for their military can buy them more military capacity than in the US, via taking advantage of those lower wages.
If the US had a large supply of workers willing to work at Chinese wages, and could use them to drive its military and military-industrial system, that wouldn't be a factor.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 308d
China also owns their own resources while the US doesn’t so the US has to pay a middle man to build anything.
Fmstrat@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 308d
Also, this probably includes what the US sells.
_stranger_@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 308d
Teppichbrand@feddit.org · 30 pts · 308d
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 308d
Isn't it "War Spending" now?
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 306d
Valmond@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 308d
Isn't the USA numbers very skewed because they include like healthcare and pensions in their numbers, even for former soldiers, while say europeans don't?
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 9 pts · 308d
Also, (and I'm no kind of expert) it seems there's a lot of graft involved in the spending, such as $67 charged for a screw, and that kind of thing. A good bit of it due to a kickback-type arrangement between the politicians involved (think Dick Cheney) and the defense contractors who get awarded the deals.
_stranger_@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 308d
Some of those "$50 screw" numbers come from cancelling projects with high total cost. A contract might be paid to produce a thousand of something and get cancelled after making 10 of them, inflating the per unit cost by a ton
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 6 pts · 308d
Thanks for the clarification. I was indeed just parroting what I'd heard & read several times, without really understanding the mechanisms involved.
_stranger_@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 308d
well, it's only some. Plus there's plenty of conspiracy theories around those types of costs being how the gov funds secret projects.
trolololol@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d
Well that still counts as stupid ways to waste money, with a side of corruption
_stranger_@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 307d
yep. plenty of money in defense wasted due to stupidity.
shalafi@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d
The Army manual says that screw must meet X, Y, and Z specs. If you don't have the tooling for those exact specs, you're going to charge more to make up the cost of retooling.
Of course there's grift and plain foolishness. Local base Commander paid a painter I knew to stop work for two weeks and screw around waiting for his commander to visit. Wanted the boss to see the painters in action, look busy.
Speaking of specs, there are old rules that never changed. Worked at a print shop where a standard 24x36" blueprint was $.63. Nope. Navy had to have the final set of plans printed on plastic media, $3/page. Now multiply by 150 for a modest set of prints.
shalafi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 308d
Meant to reply to you:
https://old.lemmy.world/comment/20048803
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 307d
i think its a very small percentage, only 62billion goes to healthcare in the defense budget. half goes to defense contractors, which is huge.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 307d
I read it brings USA down under 3.5% of GDP but I'd love some better sources on that.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 307d
i was mentioning the 62billion out of the 900billion/year. its seems very small if you think about how many service members(enlisted and officers) + thier families.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 306d
Well that was the thing, they say defence contractors, but some of it goes to pensioins and healthcare.
Alaik@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 306d
2020-2024 over half of the military budget went to contractors. 54%.
https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/paper/profits-war-top-beneficiaries-pentagon-spending-2020-2024
Valmond@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 306d
Sources, nice!
So 46% can go to pensions or anything else.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 307d
Stop calling it defense.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 307d
The government did already
DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 306d
It's officially war spending now.
ripcord@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 308d
"War" spending, now.
Edit: I am slow
dellish@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 307d
Hold up. I see three NATO countries in that top-spending list, yet Trump is crying that they don't spend enough? It seems, as everyone seems to agree, that the problem is the US spends way too much. But since US "defense" spending is an obvious grift to shift public money to private pockets this isn't too surprising.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 306d
Well he wants to dial up the grift of shifting other nato members' public money into US MIC private pockets
individual@toast.ooo · 11 pts · 308d
trolololol@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 308d
And most of it goes either into super inflated prices for the most silly things, or into projects that no one can talk about and are unsupervised.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 308d
And it virtually only ever goes up. More and more of our labor is going towards feeding the imperial war machine, while social services are gutted. Our corrupt politicians just want to line the pockets of the corporations that make bombs, and they start conflicts around the globe to justify it. The primary function of the military is essentially money laundering, to channel public funds into private hands.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 308d
yet they still lost against the Taliban,
shame
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 308d
More of a “tactical surrender” like every conflict they get into.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 308d
That's called losing.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 307d
love those bs terms
"preemptive strike", yhea, that's a first strike and you just started a war.
"tactical surrender" losing
"strategic retreat" running away
"collateral" civilians
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 306d
Wahots@pawb.social · 1 pts · 307d
We don't really fight wars like the ancients did, which is a good thing. Back then, it was total war with either wholesale enslavement of the population, or killing whoever you could get your hands on, then salting all arable land to kill off whoever was left, and to ensure nobody could live there for centuries.
It was brutally effective and completely wiped entire civilizations off the map.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 307d
Why are you bringing ancient roman warfare?
By that logic the allies didn't win ww2?
The US military is machine designed to siphoning public tax fund towards shareholders pockets.
that's why it lost a 20 year war against the poorest people on the planet.
the was was lost, but the profit was amazing for the real winners. ie, shareholders.
ICastFist@programming.dev · 8 pts · 307d
Socialize (military) spending, vassalize smaller countries, privatize wealth, that's the american way of running businesses
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 307d
2 Trillions that could have been invested in education, science and welfare instead.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 306d
Alloi@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 307d
its "necessary" once you figure out that when people get tired of the complications caused by it, they are willing to use the military to quash discent on behalf of the elite class, to maintain control.
all i know is, i play warhammer total war 3 a lot. and when my skavens are starving and start an uprising, i just send a lord with his army to quash the discenters, and maintain control.
simple as.
thatradomguy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 308d
It's gonna be funny though when the aliens finally show up and obliterate the US without even trying. lmao
krooklochurm@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 307d
I mean.
I'm not sure the aliens will ever show up.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 307d
at least half goes to defense contractors.
Alaik@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 306d
Pretty sure its over half. Edit: Yup. 54% for years 2020-2024.
We have a welfare program for already rich corporations larger than most nations GDP.
ThrowawayInTheYear23@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 308d
If the VA was a military it would be in the top 5.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 308d
Y.S.K. some countries are bigger than others. Per capita or G.T.F.O.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 308d
This is the weirdest justification to me. Military spending is for specific purposes. Like, if your hostile neighbor has twice the population as you and spends X dollars, then you don't spend 0.5 * X dollars. You're probably going to end up with higher spending per capita in order to reach parity. So why on earth would we compare by capita?
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 308d
Building all my bombs in the Vatican so I get that high per capita ratio
Echofox@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 307d
So which is it. Stellaris, Hearts of Iron, or Crusader Kings?
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 307d
Make sure to baptise them so you get holy hand grenades
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 308d
Good post 👏
m4xie@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 308d
Percentage of GSP would also be a relevant figure
twopi@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 308d
The most "Booty McBootface" type white name I've seen.
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 307d
Depends on how you define "necessary".
More than actual use, the American military is about "implied threat"
"Do as we say, or else".
Its always been that way. Without the implied threat, the other world leaders would have told cheetolini to pound sand on day one.
shalafi@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d
Most of that money stays in the country. If we shut down the tiny helicopter training base by my house, it would crush the local economy.
SirActionSack@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 307d
This must be the most 1984 thing I've read all week.
Fleur_@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 307d
Winning
bagsy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d
When you hate and fear everyone, this is what you spend your money on.
DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 306d
Who knows how much of that money is completely wasted. Remember pizzas for $500 USD, or whatever the exact price was?
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 308d
I'm surprised Japan is at #9, I would've expected Sweden or Finland above them
Donkter@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 306d
I think it's a somewhat credible theory I've heard that a large portion of our "defense" spending goes towards larger and larger bribes to countries around the world either to not go to war or to maintain trade relations with the United States in order to maintain U.S. hegemony.
banazir@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 308d