Reap what you sow-military expenditure vs development aid.

World War I was caused by militarism and a rampant arms race fueled by nationalistic bullcrap. Note that these nations were on the same foot. They were spending more or less equal amounts of money and they all posed credible threats towards one another. These conditions simply don't exist anymore. In essence, America, statistically speaking, is in an arms race with itself.

One should also point to the foundation of the UN, the proliferation of mass media, and the establishment of WMD as significant changes to the circumstances of our world.

Look, I'm not saying America should disarm. There will always be threats out there. The problem is, the current level of military spending is creating more threats then repelling them. We are forced to create threats to justify the level of spending. So it was with the "domino effect of Communism" and the "WMD in Iraq/Iran/North Korea etc."

If you shoot enough people, you'll get your enemies quick. Especially with a "war is peace" attitude.

Economists have a basic concept-marginal utility theory. Basically, more of a good thing is usually good. However, as we mount the curve, it becomes less and less better for us, until the net benefit actually becomes zero for every dollar we spend. I'd actually argue that when it comes to military spending, it's quickly driving the curve downwards, especially given the history of massive strategic failures over the last 30 or so years.

How does it make any sense that America is spending 10000% more on the military then on development aid?

 

I think it's a pretty well-established fact that nationalism played a huge part in WW1. While I'm not arguing that we've changed, it's just sad to realize how much destruction was/still is founded on arrogance.

And, I should point out for the US to be at equal military terms with the rest of the world, it should have to spend some ridiculous number less, and that won't happen in our life-time. I'm an idealist, but I'm not crazy. I'd just like to see a slight reduction in military spending and an uptick in development aid. Hell, 18% Military/1.5% Aid would make me pretty damn happy, and it would still allow the neo-cons to parade around their fantasies of dominating the world with an awesome arsenal of overkill weapons (gay bombs and death beams hoorah) AND it would establish America as the unquestioned global leader in development assistance->can't hurt to try the good side of PR can it? For security's sake, if not for altruism?

I agree that foreign aid deserves a bad rap because of corruption/inefficiency-but come on. Sensationalist example, I admit, but think of the Khmer Rouge vs corruption. Who do you take in that one?

That said, a lot of the inefficiency is due to the fact that foreign aid is often used as a tool by developed nations to prop up certain leaders.

However, if one were to delve into the whole efficiency notion, it should be noted that-

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Abhijit Banerjee and Ruimin The have undertaken a rigorous study[17] of the relatively few independent evaluations of aid program successes and failures. They suggest the following interventions are usually highly effective forms of aid in normal circumstances:

* subsidies given directly to families to be spent on children's education and health
* education vouchers for school uniforms & textbooks
* teaching selected illiterate adults to read and write
* deworming drugs and vitamin/nutritional supplements
* vaccination and HIV/AIDS prevention programs
* indoor sprays against malaria, anti-mosquito bed netting
* suitable fertilizers
* clean water supplies

I mean if nations really looked into it and looked where their money was going, this wouldn't be such a problem. KISS. Some people in this world are missing the most basic of things. You give them the basics and teach them how to prosper, I guarantee you good things will happen. I've had a couple of friends who've gone overseas (I've never had the privilege myself, but hoping on it soon), and yes this is anecdotal evidence, but hell, the one thing everyone notices about Third World children-they're hungry to succeed. They are willing to undertake difficult odds to better themselves. They know they've been placed in a s***hole and most will do anything to get out.

 

Also, note-

The Obama Admin has cut military expenditures and raised development assistance, though whether it is enough is questionable. I don't know the exact numbers but there have apparently been "significant" changes in this direction (the most memorable example being cutting the F22 program)

I kinda fudged the figures-I only noticed now. Military spending is 4.7% of GDP and foreign aid represents about 0.9% of the federal budget. The comparision numbers become 4.7% and 0.2% and 0.9% and 20% which are not as harrowing, but still indicative of a wild disparity. It's kinda hard to get a comprehensive and recent set of data though, so do be wary of whatever I post. If I really want to go all out, I'll look through the databases at my uni., but-I don't really want to go all out. Just don't accept stats from me as some golden truth.

Also-the cold war peak was 6% GDP military. It was as low as 3% from 1998-2001, but since 9/11, it has steadily expanded upwards (also note that none of these figures take into consideration non-DOD military expenditure such as NASA/Veterans Affairs etc.)

Adm. Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated that the military will enforce a price floor of 4% of GDP on military spending.