Is reducing the defense budget harm certain aspects of the economy?

Nothing is all good or all bad. Of course they create jobs, but ultimately the result of those jobs is a bunch of weapons that will either sit in a warehouse, or will be used to kill combatants.

It is certainly productive up to a point, but in terms of actually creating something that will grow the economy and make the world better, it reaches diminishing returns pretty quickly, even if you take the broadest view.

I mean, Pablo Escobar created a whole bunch of jobs for chemists, manufacturing specialists, and transportation services - all very good, high paying jobs - but ultimately the end result of those jobs was not net productive for society (they generate income but as a side effect the product they create and market destroys productivity on a much larger scale). As a result, despite creating jobs, nobody will argue that drug cartels like Pablo Escobar's are a good thing.

At the point that the USA can defend herself nominally well, additional defense spending on a value per dollar basis begins to decline rapidly. Potentially (and potentially not) there is some additional value generated by the additional spending for Pax Americana, but even then it burns out. All the defense spending that went into Iraq and Afghanistan? That is all treasure and human capital that the USA won't recoup. Maybe the creation of a stable market generates something back, but not in any way proportionally.

 

Some of these cats (top-notch engineers, accountants with higlarge-scale project experience) could probably get some decent jobs overseas as well. In fact, most of the defense guys could probably land at a factory, plant or any kind of energy/mining gig.

 

Maybe we need a serious Alternative Energy program under the Department of Defense: like NASA, the internet and the interstate highway system.

 

Its not under the DOD, but we do have ARPA-E.

 

Yes, defense spending cuts means jobs lost.

However, if you're worried about jobs, there are many other better things to fund (or not cut).

 

Some people will be harmed as you described. However, the benefit of reducing defense spending and returning that money to the taxpayers allows them to spend the savings on things they demand which yields an overall net benefit to the economy, in short.

 

There is no returning money to taxpayers since all of it borrowed money. The only money being returned is the money our children and grandchildren have to pay in interest.

 

In that case, the money spent becomes less money borrowed, and more purchasing power for every dollar.

 

That's not the case either, until inflation becomes an issue. Right now, its not an issue yet. We were worried about deflation just last year.

 

We are the largest exporter of military hardware in the world, and we have been for quite some time. In the short term it will have a negative effect on our economy, ever since the civil war the military industrial complex has rooted imbedded itself into this countries economy. In the long term it will be beneficial, the government can redirect that money to invest in technology that will actually benefit people. Medical research, transportation, computer technologies. It perplexes me that people are so content with allowing the military to take on the role of the US's high tech industry. Ok yeah sure, the military is responsible for creating the internet and other crazy technological feats. But how many average joes own: an m16,m60,AR15, a military uniform, body armor, helmets, tanks, humvees,black hawks, little birds, apaches, f16,f18,f22,b22, air craft carriers etc etc i dont know many.

really, its a question of priorities and efficiency. Seems the military is pretty efficient in creating technologies that help itself and our security. Although these technologies usually seep down to the avg joe many years later if they do at all. We need to prioritize for a long term investment, sure we can spend on the military but when youve got people financially you need to prioritize your spending.

There are many other routes to create new technologies, not just the military.

 

Financially hurting*

 

employee 3 public school teachers at 140k/yr > employee 1 lockheed engineer at 140k/yr

 

Guns V. Butter

Unless you're a semi to full-blown crank who thinks the entire global economy is propped up by our military industrial complex