Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel. 🎉 Get up to 60% OFF your subscription ➡️ Here: go.babbel.com/t?bsc=1200m60-youtube-economicsexplained-aug-2023&btp=default&RU-vid&Influencer..economicsexplained..USA..RU-vid
Downvoted for stating / implying that hunger can be eliminated. As a economics student, you should be well aware that hunger cannot be eliminated by implied definition. It is essentially the (economics) law that there must be hunger
i LOVE HOW You used china as an example at 8:35 when the united states has consistently spent over 2 times as much as the next 10 countries combined, also the usa started more than 80 wars in the past 100 years even after the soviet union fell and the supposed world would be at peace the united states did not disband nato after the ussr dissolved and continued to build up its military and getting involved in a trail of conflicts
if anything the prisoners dilemma proves that north korea and russias actions are correct, because if they did not develop their military they would end up like libya, iraq, chile, afghanistan ,guatamalla, haiti, nicaragura, bolivia, el salvador.
quick correction - John Nash was not the founder of Game Theory. That honor generally goes to John von Neumann who published a paper in 1928 called "On the Theory of Games of Strategy".
Correct. Even more serious problem though: the prisoners dilemma is a "dominant strategy"; i.e. a concept that existed before the the Nash equilibrium. Every dominant strategy is an equilibrium, but the opposite is NOT true. The reason this problem is famous is that the dominant strategy leads to an outcome which is not Pareto optimal (meaning that the two criminals can do better by cooperating rather than being selfish as game theory demands).
This game of "first" makes no difference in economics or math. It doesn't help any understanding of the concept. It's also unlikely that either of them were the first humans that understood and communicated Game Theory.
Particularly the framing that is frequently reported about America spending more than the next 10 countries, 7 of which are their allies. But adjusted for PPP it's only the next 3, none of which are allies...
Cappy from Task and Purpose here on YT did a deep dive into the US Defence Budget. Fully 30% of their Budget disappears instantly on Rent for Property the Defence Dept has, and on Welfare payments to retired personnel. None of the other Countries mentioned are putting that in their Defence Budget, if they're paying it at all.
The problem is trust. If two parties trust each other and cooperate with no barriers they can achieve an incredible amount more than if they held back. Trust makes you vulnerable and in a world of billions of people only a small number in power need to be untrustworthy for things to fall apart.
No one can be trusted to not abuse the position of power over others; that was the reason that the founding fathers formed a government that included separation of powers, but this was abandoned when congress enacted the home land secur ity act. Now all agencies of government are controlled by an unconstitutional administrative body that literally makes its own policies and regulations, not subject to any oversight. Nine 11 was a coup.
@@ethribin4188 If you have a significant other living in your house and you have knives in the house, you have no security of them not stabbing you in your sleep. there is no security from them poising you. But you don't worry because you trust them. You don't need to hold a gun to people's heads and threaten them 24/7
A few years back I looked up which countries in the world were suffering famines. I learned that famines were only occurring where government or paramilitary forces were restricting access to food, to starve people into submission. Sudan and Yemen specifically. We had enough food to feed the world. Civil wars were the problem.
Yes, it's a distribution/access issue. The famine in Somalia was entirely because militias were stopping/seizing food aid shipments. Humanity creates much of it's own tragedies.
I think you mean that paramilitary forces were restricting *foreign* aid. Yemen, in particular, was not producing enough food to feed itself. But, hey, Singapore doesn't produce enough food to feed itself, and it's one of the world's richest countries. If a society isn't food self-sufficient -- and there are many that are not -- the only recourse is to import food from outside. If supply chains get disrupted, whether by malice, incompetence, or natural disaster, famine is always going to be a risk. Look at what the war in Ukraine has done to food availability in Africa and Turkey just recently.
On the geopolitical level i feel its important to correct the nuance that America 'defends' everyone else. They dont do that for free. Obviously. Economists know nothing is free. The shortest way i can put it is: they handle the military stuff so we do what we're told. It's a client state arrangement, not charity.
I disagree with your assessment. The entire point of globalization was to contain communism. US obligation towards the world order started to unravel under Bush, jr. Through to Biden. The US, at best, has a modest gnp to gdp ratio and in economic terms, does not enforce any sort of membership to anything beyond military alliances.
@@lkjhfdszxcvbnm From others who 'broke the rule' either just pirate or China. Most have good arrangements and benefits from the current statue quo so they are ok with it.
One of my favorite quotes is from Dwight D. Eisenhower's Chance for Peace speech in which he states: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." "This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex yet left it a powder keg for JFK to dismantle... which he tried... so they dismantled his head.
Neo liberal economics is extending this to the already wealthy. We can watch in realtime the crumbling of infrastructure while the rich make off with great heaps of money.
Interestingly, the Emu War was actually a by product of surplus from a war. Essentially some farmers needed emus dealt with and some bright spark pointed out there was lots of ammunition left over from the Great war... and so they used it. If there had been no WW1, there would have been no Emu war.
In cooperative game theory, the players choose the best outcome for everybody under the grand coalition. (The 1,1 solution) However, it requires some additional assumptions, such as the players sharing information beforehand, and actually cooperating.
It also assumes everybody has similar enough goals, sees the various options in the same way, and plays/acts the same way. The same problem can be shown when people say Putin isn't a rational actor any more. Well he isn't reading the situation the same way, has different cost/benefits, is willing to pay different costs, and isn't looking for the same outcome. France & Germany are still salty about how the UK handled Brexit, so they block a UK general from heading NATO. Macron has his own power aspirations, so he suggests a parallel pan-EU military that is not bound by NATO obligations. Germany wanted to keep cheap gas, so they get Nord Stream 2 after Russia seizes Crimea. No two (major) parties has entirely the same goal.
I've heard military spending and warfare described as the most economically inefficient aspect of human society. However, the thing about the military is that you don't need it until you need it and if you need it and you don't have it you're in for a very bad time.
Which is also a wrong way to see it. Because if you don't have an army, your chances of being invaded go through the roof. And if you have a massive one, you will never be invaded and you will even get to dictate world policy in your favor by leveraging your power over weaker countries. Or you can just get nukes, that works too.
Could you do a video on the economy of Wold of Warcraft? I went through your old economy of MMO videos & wish you did one. Of course, it's the biggest MMO economy which I bet you & your staff would have a blast analyzing. Can't get enough of your vids. You've taught be more about economics multiple times over anything I learned in high school.
Considering that FF14 has almost double the population (~20 million subs) that WoW ever had at its most popular (~12 million subs, circa 2010), and that WoW has massively shrunk from its Wrath of the Lich King days, I find the claim dubious that WoW has the biggest MMO economy.
It'd still might be interesting because of the wow token and how it's directly connected to real life economies as bots take the gold and sell it cheaper than Blizz prices, which you can only assume a majority of those buyers live in places where they could not afford to play it otherwise. I'm not really sure of the consequences overall but I'm guessing that it inflates the gold value of the token while evaporating the value of anything farmable, effectively hurting Blizz.? However, Blizzard has been truly pathetic at getting a handle on bots where it is very easy to wonder if this black market is actually hurting them or if they are somehow benefitting. They are adding tons of insane gold sinks lately which I guess would keep regular players a need to buy tokens. Botting has been extremely profittable though for these companies selling wow gold for real money and has been for a very long time. @@StochasticUniverse
Aside from game theory, there is also the human psych that comes into play. When I was in college our group did a survey as part of our term paper about human competitiveness, and we used videos game genres to determine subconscious preference of "competitiveness". A huge portion of respondents chose either Hack & Slash, FPS, and pretty much any genre with some kind of action/violence involved. Meanwhile non-violent competitive games (the likes of Tetris, Animal Crossing, Sim City, etc.) almost didn't get any votes. The other group did the survey in the guise of sports and their respondents preferred contact sports such as boxing, basketball, football/soccer, hockey (both ice and field) because these are more exciting and also have tendencies for athletes to be engaged in altercations especially in heated matches, rather than non-contact sports like golf, bowling or chess because these are boring and the participants are more likely to simply shake hands rather than engage in fist fights lol. It shows that it is human nature to feel superior and some sense of pride when we are dominant violently (maybe not directly but at least in some ways). In a nation's perspective, military might is an aspect that measures a country's global dominance, and in a sense it also give its people a sense of national pride and superiority. We want things to be civil but our subconscious says otherwise.
seems like you're drawing some big conclusions about human nature for the size and quality of this study. Did the study have equal representation of men and women? what about age ranges outside the late teens and esrly twenties? Is it possible that the results you obtained were a result of asking individuals from a particular society that promotes violence and aggression rather than reflecting an underlying trait in all humans?
I don't know man. Fps games are just superior in mental demand, strategic depth and intensity of competitiveness. If you want to be truly great at fps games you need to be extremely good at many things. Slow pace games have very one dimensional skill requirements and very low intensity and a sometimes a high availability barrier (like golf ) and you don't have the same immediate rewards. Most people never being able to afford to participate enough to get good at these exclusive non contact sports. I just don't think that the study itself allows any conclusion from what you have described about it.
I think philosophy also plays a role behind the cause of war. I think people have an instinctual desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves, something that will continue to exist after they're dead. A country is a good example of what I'm referring to and what's a better way to show love for one's country than by joining the military.
Which is weird because most PvP games are not even good games; the entire gameplay experience gets carried by the dopamine and testosterone rush of being able to dominate someone else in competition. The best single-player PvE games usually have deeper mechanics and better actual gameplay. But, hey, just goes to show you that people will do anything for a cheap hormone hit, even subject themselves to playing a toxic game with which they have a love-hate relationship like League of Legends. :P
@@andrewlucas246Violence and aggression are definitely underlying traits in all humans. Hence why every country has fought wars, duh. Every human does have an endocrine system, after all. You have entire body parts that are dedicated to squirting funny juice into your blood, and sometimes the funny juice leads to conflict. It can't really be helped. Comes with the primate territory, really.
Investing in alternate income streams should be the top priority for everyone right now especially given the global economic crisis we are currently experiencing, Stocks, gold, silver, and virtual currencies are still attractive investments at the moment.
Last year I was working full time budgeting groceries, unable to afford date nights, and missing time with my kids. Now I learn how to make money online. Now I'm a SAHM, homeschooling and making profits every week.
The one thing about America’s massive expenditure is that is does facilitate the US getting greatly increased influence in geopolitical affairs. Both with the sway it holds over its allies for being their security guarantors, as well as with their rivals and neutral states that they can push around with their soft power. The ROI is difficult to quantify for this enhanced influence, but it’s undoubtedly quite valuable, as otherwise other states would not jostle for even a share of the hegemony that the US enjoys.
Buying food for people wouldn't eradicate hunger- it would cause a population spike that would ultimately increase hunger. The only way to eradicate it is for people to develop the economic resources to feed themselves.
@@Shineon83 And there's the issue that such food wouldn't reach its target population anyway, given the corrupt or dictatorial governments standing in the way.
That's completely ignorant and ridiculous. Today, more people die of obesity than starvation. Furthermore, the world's population is actually expected to decrease; many countries are having fewer babies than the fertility replacement level of 2.1 children per couple.
Great video! It must also be said however that one of the biggest issues in defence economics is that you can’t quantify or really measure defence output (does spending another billion dollars on defence make us a billion times more secure? Defence is a product, but how much of it are we getting per dollar spent on it?). What is hinted at in the discussion of PPP is the idea of defence as a tournament good that must always increase in relation to rivals. Seen this way, the right amount of defence must always give us a greater capability than our enemies (or be enough to impose too great a cost for any benefit they may receive from attacking - deterrence).
And the obvious questions are: 1. Is the threat real, or is the alarm being manufactured for other reasons? 2. Does international law always apply. I mean, if the Russian invasion of Ukraine is against international law, and is so called out, and the western invasion of Iraq is against international law, and is so called out, but we agree with one and disagree with another, what does this say about "defence" decisions?
I think this video should also point out that the u.s. military helps support the u.s. as a reserve currency and regulate how oil transactions are ultimately carried out. This has an effect of making the u.s. dollar worth more, so the military partially pays for its self in some ways between new tech, gps, the internet, and the u.s. dollar currency system.
a friend of mine was a somewhat high ranking soldier turned finance manager in one of the military branches, they were telling me stories and i would ask how much is a 50cal round or other popular consumables/ equipment ballpark cost. he had no idea, i guess its treated like other government tax pools, just one gigantic slush fund every hungry hippo is trying their best to get full.
@@JamielDeAbrew Sounds good until you realise there are tens of millions of different items the military buys, prices of which change regularly. Wouldn't change anything either.
I think you left out one very important point! The US (also Russian) military budgets may seem disproportionate, but they also bring money in by developing weapons that other nations purchase.
@@fuad000100 Defense companies pay the same taxes as any other companies. I know, it's a real shocker they don't work for free, I was also shocked to learn it when I was 3 years old.
War created civilization, and this is a better form of raiding. The first wall that existed long before agriculture, let alone money, was invented. The tools of the state, the centralization of power, mobilizing populations, crafting and mining exist to feed the machinery of war. You just take peace and prosperity for granted. Peace is not self-sustaining, natural or inevitable. Peace is a constant effort, a conscious effort.
In Brazil we try. We are the biggest spender in Latin America. And yesterday our goverment approved an adicional of 52bi BRL in military spending until 2026
@@gleitsonSallesare you fighting ever expanding fleet of chinese "fishermen boats" ? or are argentinians planning new coup ... though US can via corporations stab too, so better "keep them honest" like other comment said of keeping your locks locked.
When the U.S. spends $1,000 and China spends $10 on the same hammer, then then amount of dollars spent doesn't truly represent the effectiveness of either hammer.
Reducing global poverty and hunger could lead to a boom in births and a even larger group that needs food and shelter, thus even more money needed to feed and house the increased population.
@jacobjones630 Unfortunately poor countries do have higher birth rates, usually because most of the children die young. Wealthy countries do not have as many children partly because they are not facing that same issue. If poor people were given food they would still be poor but not as many of their children would die young, especially from malnutrition. It is anyone's guess if these people would reduce their birth rates if more of their children are surviving. (Another reason wealthy people don't have lots of children is because they are worried about the expense of raising a child, including food. If the cost of having children is reduced because the government is funding food needs, it could intice all people to feel they can afford to have more children.
Quality of life increase generally always goes hand in hand with a drop in birth rate. Better QoL -> more education -> more free thinking independent mindsets -> greater migration to large urban population centers -> less space -> busier jobs -> less kids Japan's rapid upscale in QoL from WW2 till the 90s has lead to a staggering drop in birth rate. The replacement birthrate is 2 (2 kids for 2 parents) , they are at 1.3. South Korea are 0.8. Meanwhile in Africa its at 4.1.
Economy is not a natural thing its a human made so more human mean bigger Economy look at China and India they will be biggest Economy in 50 years and richest because of their population
As a fellow Aussie, I’ve become very aware of our upwards inflection at the end of every sentence after somehow ending up of linguistics TikTok, and although I’m just one viewer and am in no way suggesting that you have to, I feel like your videos might benefit just a tiny bit from varying your inflections sometimes. You do you tho bro.
Very intersitng video! and definately gained a new perspective with PPP factored in! Great to see a refreshing perspective on such a complex and controversial issue. Lots to think about for the future! One question, I'm not sure its fair to assume the biggest threat to the world is China, playing the two superpowers as USA = Good and China = Bad. There are no good sides in war and both countries are finding it harder to cooperate with competing world orders.
To calculate by PPP is nonsense, it does not take into account the quality of goods and services, and BIG corruption, yes in China the salary of the military is less, but the quality of training of the soldier is worse, as they do not have such military experience as in the U.S., and in China much worse treatment of ordinary soldiers that badly affects their psyche and subsequently and on military combat readiness. The pay is low, but the quality is also worse. Also take for example the aircraft carriers of China and the USA, Chinese aircraft carriers are many times cheaper, but their quality is much worse, because they are not nuclear as in the USA. And do not forget about corruption, which is very developed in China, and because of this the prices for military services, materials, construction can be specially inflated to enrich the local government elites and all this can not be seen in the official statistics. Also do not forget the PPP formula is very unstable and depends very much on who counts and how they count and where the data come from (and they are taken from official sources of the CCP, which is known for its falsification).
@@rei_zxNope fool it is very realistic. Pay is high as well as output in china for their currency so, it is the only reliable metrics for measurement.
@@rei_zx I'm not trying to start an argument mate, but you're underestimating China. I have no insight into their corruption, but I can see ours fairly clearly. No doubt it exists over there, but the quality of goods just improves every year. I work for a mining company in Australia, and we're currently running 300 tonne Chinese trucks by remote control from a thousand Miles away, and been doing so for 3 years without a major problem. Now we're trialling self driving machines. And their aircraft carriers are going to electromagnetic launchers - I'm not even sure if the US has perfected those yet.
You can't solve global hunger until you evolve beyond capitalism. In capitalism you need scarcity and exploited classes. You're an economist. You know that is true deep down inside your capitalist soul.
It's a simplified viewpoint of the military spending and motivations because it briefly explaines individual participants motivations And what factors in that motivation effect thier decision making
So military spending is useful for supporting the economy, because the wages that are paid to military employees are spent on goods and services, keeping businesses operating? ... Isn't that also the case for any other govt job? That's stimulus too then, no?
Yes, that is why he called it an "inefficient stimulus." There are certainly better ways to use gov't spending to help the economy than paying people to do unnecessary jobs and buying expensive paperweights. But his point was that, inefficiently or not, military spending does have economic benefits. For every dollar you cut from the defence budget, you don't suddenly have $1 to spend, because you have to immediately deal with all of the economic damage you did by firing soldiers and shutting down arms factories and cancelling ROTC education problems and ending military R&D, so in reality, cutting money from the defence budget probably only gets you 40% to 60% of that money you can actually redirect to other programs (and that is leaving aside the security/international influence risks of having a weaker military).
@@boosterh1113 Right, better to throw more money down the money hole, send more people into wars, blow up more economic engines and inputs, pollute the environment and fester racial and national hatred for a few more generations. Something, something, SUNK COST FALICY. There now I sound like a smart boy economist.
One thing to mention about China’s military budget. Yes salaries are less and things such as housing and simple goods are cheaper, but some of the most expensive things such as high end military equipment really isn’t that much cheaper. It is, but only marginally. China however does also somewhat mask its budget as it doesn’t include R&D among several other things that are included and take up a large portion of the American budget.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex yet left it a powder keg for JFK to dismantle... which he tried... so they dismantled his head.
@@V1489CygniWhich way do you mean? Is military spending depriving us of handcuffs, locks and vaccines? Or are you suggesting handcuffs, locks and vaccines are depriving hungry people of food?
@@CarFreeSegnitz the second. None of those things are free. None would be needed if everyone behaved all the time, in which case those resources could be spent elsewhere but that's just not how it works. Not that I don't admire the man, don't get me wrong.
You lock your doors to keep your neighbors honest. And so everyone in the neighborhood owes their shared peace and safety to not providing undue temptation to others.
Also depends what kind of military spending we're talking about. Often conscripted soldiers also act as emergency disaster relief personnel during peace-times. Example if a water pipe bursts somewhere in Finland, its the army reservists who get a call and give pure water canisters to the neighbourhood.
Can you make a video focusing on the personal economics of war? Basically, the ways in which the military is a better (and worse) job / career over other employers? For example, militaries nowadays have sophisticated equipment such as aircraft that need to be maintained and operated, and the military will teach you how do these things for free (financially). Personally for me, in my country, the military paid for my undergraduate and master's level engineering education. I know the military isn't everyone's employer of choice but it would be cool to see a video of how it stacks up to other employers and maybe the kind of demographics the military may or may not appeal to.
The US budget system is quite different from the Chinese one. The US military budget includes also all the benefits, pensions and medical assistance for the personal and the veterans. The Chinese one does not. Pensions and medical assistance fall in other chapters of the state budget. And if you add the different purchasing power right now the Chinese military budget exceeds the US one.
Another important thing people don't understand about USA and China's millitary spending is that USA considers a whole lot of things as millitary spending like pensions, infrastructure etc, which china does not include in their millitary spending
4:49 No, the internet did not "get its start as a piece of military communications". That is a persistent myth. True, the initial funding for the research project that gave rise to the internet was provided by the US military through ARPA (the DoD's Advanced Research Projects Agency, later renamed DARPA), but it was developed by US universities and companies as a civilian project.
Right, it was a civilian contracted project payed for by military funds in hopes of researching military technology? thats still pretty much "get its start as a piece of military communications" tbh
Investment in a military and conflict are two separate arguments. Much of military spending is done as a deterrent to conflict. Had Ukraine have been able to properly deter Russia action, the additional money spent on this conflict, waste of resources, human life, and rebuilding after the conflict. The world has had one of its most peaceful periods in history with globalization that could not have been secured without investment in the military.
@@jacobjones630 That’s not their job. Don’t be an idiot. If it wasn’t guns it would be knives, cars, chemicals, or something else. Happens in every country. We need families to take better care of their mentally ill or have somebody take care of them.
@@chillxxx241 You aren't going to terrorize a shopping mall with a knife or a car and you can't buy a bomb in walmart. And NO, it does not happen in other countries at the eye watering levels it happens in the US. That's like saying it snows sometimes in texas so minnesota shouldn't worry about snow. The circular logic of needing guns to stop guns takes all the responsibility off the shoulder of the firearms manufacturers who have made fortunes flooding the nation with lethal weapons. The people with all the money have the most responsibility to give back to the society that let's them make it in the first place.
@@BigLukeyBoiincredibly frustrating for those filmmakers trying to expose the gross incompetence of the government. Everyone just laughing and patting them on the back, going 'yeah, nice one mate'.
Thanks EE. As always thought provoking. A small (or big?) issue with your purchasing parity assessment of US military spending is that you've ignored the odd American habit of hiding their military spending in other large buckets. The reported "Defense" spending is actually primarily for international force projection. Defense is provided by the gargantuan Homeland Security department. The entire nuclear deterrent is squirreled away in the Department of Energy. Then there are various military capabilities maintained in the labyrinth of "intelligence" organizations; some of these are included in other military budgets, some not. So, your conclusion that US military spending is sensibly in line with game theory when measured in purchasing parity may falter when the US military budget is more realistically double the Pentagon budget alone. The obvious argument would be that other countries may engage in similar accounting/semantic games. But arguably this is not the case to anything like the same extent and you end up discussing the influence of the Military Industrial Complex and other matters which I'm sure is not your intention!
Yes, other countries do the exact same thing. China spends more on internal security than defence, and that includes military grade forces. Russsia had a massive stockpile of weapons to consider as well. You're not special
NATO countries suffer from the Free Rider Problem. Europeans don't spend much on defense because they freeload off the defense provided by the American taxpayers.
Tbf most European countries don't need a large military. The biggest threat to them is Russia and Ukraine has shown that they aren't that big of a threat.
@@davidk.d.7591 Ukraine is in rubble, millions have fled, the economy is in ruins, and there isn't a guarantee that they get their territory back. The lesson here isn't the lack of Russian threat. With the exception of France, Europe can't even protect their overseas interests. Without America help, Europe doesn't have the capability of taking on ISIS in Libya or Syria, doesn't have the capability to stop Iran from cutting off their oil shipments, or prevent China from monopolizing the most important international shipping lanes. The US is protecting EU national security interests *for free.*
“World hunger could be eradicated by half as much”…..For how long? “….Or, it could eradicate poverty” (Again, for how long)? …. As long as there are humans, there will always be hunger & poverty…..AND war….(Btw, the whole, “outspend your opponent’s military” game has already been played-and won…)
The substantial defense expenditure in the United States can largely be attributed to the influence of the „Military-industrial complex." This influence manifests through a range of factors, including the somewhat relaxed enforcement of third-party monitoring mechanisms, relatively lenient anti-lobbying laws, the intricate interplay of the military-industrial-media complex, and notably, the Army and Navy Union of the United States of America, which tends to captivate ambitious politicians striving for electoral success. All of these elements collectively contribute to nurturing a prevailing pro-militarist perspective and an assertively hawkish foreign policy stance. Furthermore, this convergence of factors has given rise to a robust export market and an overly dependable industrial job sector, upon which a significant number of Americans rely. It is my belief that the core driver behind this extensive defense spending does not primarily stem from economic considerations. Instead, it originates from intricate political, legal, and institutional dynamics. The United States' hesitancy and ignorance to address these issues not only hold the potential to adversely affect its domestic affairs but also carry the risk of exerting a detrimental influence on the global stage.
I used to get lost all the time before GPS, or at least consumer street navigation GPS, even with a pile of maps in my car and printing out Map Quest directions. The kids just don’t know what they missed out on.
It's still worth speculating the potential of that spending having gone directly into scientific research into technological development. How much further our technology could've gone by now if used solely for that purpose.
12:10 "The US only spends as much as the next 3 countries combined..." On the chart that is shown it's only 2 countries combined China and India: $504 + $274 = $778, which is already larger than $732 of USA. No need to add up Russia.
I like watching various viewpoints to try to make comprehensive understanding of the world and ourselves. I’d like to recommend my videos of teaching Chinese language vividly and in a funny way to those who want to learn Chinese. I hope more people can learn Chinese to get comprehensive firsthand information about China and seek more job opportunities. Know yourself as well as your partners, competitors, and adversaries.
"some of the skills that peoples in the military are trained in are completely useless in any kind of civilian industry" retail worker: "hello, Karen..."
What exactly does solving world hunger mean anyways does that mean that once that 300bn is spent its the last time we need to do that? where does the food come from?
As globalization winds down military conquests and brute force ensurances of access to resources are only going to become more viable and necessary. If every country has to look out for themselves and no one is willing to give them resources they natively dont have well theres going to be issues.
The thing about game theory that people forget, is that it only works if both sides don't communicate with each other If both sides can make an agreement, they will always opt for the 1 year in prison option Globalization is that communication, the thing that should make war economically unviable But we are regressing in that area
You do a disservice to the problem by only addressing countries and not the industry giants like Navistar and Textron that politicians have stock in and don't have much to transfer to civilian sales. Some of these companies having monetary sway equivalent to small countries, and due to contracts effect how much the US pays over what other countries spend. Often contracts approved by those with conflict of interest due to stock portfolios.
Could someone explain the military spending table at 8:50? The numbers don't make sense to me. If they are both peaceful, somehow they spend more than if the other militarises. Is the concept that 10 military spending is required vs 5 if both militarised because they will be spending a lot more by occupying the other nation?
Wait. Why did you factor for PPP? Do guns and fighter aircrafts have different prices in different countries? I get that food etc. for the upkeep of personnel would require this adjustment, but how much of military spending is on that vs. arms, ammunition, technology and research? And how many of these require PPP adjustment?
Military equipment build in China is going to be cheaper than military equipment build in the US. This is true also for research cost etc. All are affected by different salary levels. It make sense to apply it across the board. But keep in mind that the value is not intended for this use so thd actual "military equivalent purchesing power" value is probably slightly off. By how much is anyone guess. Also personel salaries are a big chunk of military in countries around the world. So even if no domestic military industry is present it's still a good estimate. Note: salary as a percentage of total spending is not that big, but there are other spending chapters that are excluded from salaries but actually should be included, like pention, veteran benefits, etc. Those are all expenditure on personel even if strictly speaking they are not salaries.
And these kind of plans had never failed in the past. 300 billion would be spent only in the meetings to decide how they would efficiently pretend to solve the problem.
Tbh most of not all wars are started from some sort of territorial amd posessional dispute-mammals are just instictively territorial and something thats hard not persue when its built in our DNA so conflict is just a 'natural' attribute for humans
We contribute more nominally to NATO, but we also in return get the status of World’s Reserve Currency in exchange, effectively making up for extra spending by letting us borrow more than we would be able to without that status. Also we get bragging rights and cool movies
The problem with pacifist idealism is that violence is essentially (to paraphrase Heinlein) the supreme authority, from which all other authority is derived. If there's not enough "or else" at the end of your policy, economic system, cultural mores, moral code, etc., then ultimately it's impossible to maintain. Someone else who has that "or else" will ignore, exploit, take over, or destroy whatever system you build. Not advocating total militarism here, because it's stupid to propose any "-ism" as a solution on its own.
