Hegemony Good Index
A2: Defense Spending Kills Econ
Download 335.07 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- ***Regional Conflict***
A2: Defense Spending Kills EconDefense spending does not collapse the economy. Bradley A. Thayer (Associate Professor in the Dept. of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University) 2007 “American Empire: A Debate” p 14 And it is affordable. While the amount of U.S. defense spending certainly is a large sum, it is only about 4 percent of its gross domestic product, as Table 1.3 illustrates. An examination of the data in the table is remarkable for four reasons. First, U.S. defense spending is about half of the world's total defense spending. Second, the United States spends more than almost all the other major military powers in the world combined. Of course, most of those major military powers are also allies of the United States. Third, U.S. defense spending is very low when measured as a percentage of its economy, about 3.7 percent of its total economy. Fourth, defense spending at that level is easily affordable for the United States into the future.
James Cypher, Professor of Economics at CSU-Fresno, Dollars & Sense, July-August, 2002, p19(4) Military spending is once again propping up an economy burdened by excess capacity and withering private-sector investment. (See James M. Cypher, "Return of the Iron Triangle: The New Military Buildup," D&S, January/February 2002.) But military spending also crowds out social programs supported by public-sector funds, such as healthcare, public transportation, education, and environmental protection. James M. Cypher Since World War II, military spending has been used by the U.S. government as an imperfect form of domestic planning. It has functioned as a vital economic prop for a system that is prone to stagnation and depression. It has created an artificial demand for the "metal eating" industries (autos, steel, aluminum, coal, iron ore, machine tools, shipbuilding, etc.) whenever these industries faced a declining domestic market. In short, military spending has helped the U.S. economy grow. Military spending causes more investment, preventing recession from turning into depression James Cypher, Professor of Economics at CSU-Fresno, Dollars & Sense, July-August, 2002, p19(4) The CEP attempts to show that the U.S. economy's low level of growth in recent years is due to a high level of military spending which leads to a low level of investment. (Military spending "crowds out" investment.) In fact, the opposite is true. In the United States, when military spending declines, investment declines. Thus, in 1970, military spending declined 1.6% and investment went down 2.0% (see table). In 1974 military spending fell 3.5% while investment decreased 1.7%. In both cases in the following year, military spending was increased to counteract the fall in investment. In expansionary periods we find that both military spending and investment increase. Thus, given the need for the stimulus that military spending provides for the U.S. economy, we find that military spending directly and via its ripple effect leads U.S. corporations to expand their capital base. In periods of slump and recession, the stimulus provided by military spending stops investment from declining as much as it otherwise would without the military buildup. This helps to put a "floor" underneath the economy, helping to stabilize its otherwise erratic movement. ***Regional Conflict***Regional Conflict ModuleUS stability solves regional conflicts and stops international rivalries all over the globe from escalating- it’s not about benevolence it’s about nation- states protecting self- interests Thayer 7 (Bradley. A is an Associate Professor in the Dept. of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, “American Empire: A Debate”, Taylor and Francis Group, 2007, MJB) The fourth critical fact to consider is that the security provided by the power of the United States creates stability in international politics. That is vitally important for the world, but easily forgotten. Harvard professor Joseph Nye often compares the security provided by the United States to oxygen. If it were taken away, a person would think of nothing else. If the security and stability provided by the United States were taken away, most countries would be much worse off, and arms races, vicious security competition, and wars would result. It would be a world without NATO or other key U.S. alliances. We can imagine easily conflict between traditional rivals like Greece and Turkey, Syria and Israel, India and Pakistan, Taiwan and China, Russia and Georgia, Hungary and Romania, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and an intense arms race Between China and Japan. In that world, the breakup of Yugoslavia would have been a far bloodier affair that might have escalated to become another European war. In contrast to what might occur absent U.S. power, we see that the post–Cold War world dominated by the United States is an era of peace and stability. The United States does not provide security to other countries because it is altruistic. Security for other states is a positive result (what economists call a positive externality) of the United States pursuing its interests. Therefore, it would be a mistake to seek “benevolence” in great power politics. In international politics, states advance their self-interest and, most often, what might appear to be “benevolent” actions are undertaken for other reasons. To assist Pakistani earthquake refugees, for example, is benevolent but also greatly aids the image of the United States in the Muslim world—so self-interest is usually intertwined with a humanitarian impulse. The lesson here is straightforward: Countries align themselves with the United States because to do so coincides with their interests, and they will continue to do so only as long as their interests are advanced by working with Uncle Sam. In 1848, the great British statesman Lord Palmerston captured this point best when he said: “We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”2 Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 335.07 Kb. Share with your friends:
|