tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post5900682188777310119..comments2024-03-28T06:49:24.930-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: Military Spending and the Value of LivesThomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-69704901302519445192011-10-25T19:36:25.530-04:002011-10-25T19:36:25.530-04:00I agree, and whatever percentage is accurate must ...I agree, and whatever percentage is accurate must have dropped quite a lot in the past two decades. On the one hand that doesn't really matter if policymakers still think it's high. It also might not matter too much if you want to over-insure against tail risks, as Taleb recommends. <br /><br />In any case I look forward to the post.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-42778812356093219842011-10-25T16:19:48.171-04:002011-10-25T16:19:48.171-04:00I wrote a longer comment but blogger ate it. Short...I wrote a longer comment but blogger ate it. Shorter version: You quote 'soru' to the effect that there is a 40% chance of a WW2 style conflict in any given future decade (or so planners assume). This is wildly unrealistic. More reasonable estimate wd be 0 to 3 percent. The reason has much to do w the effects of the 20thcent world wars themselves (an argument to be made at more length, eventually, on my blog).LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-31768074799132466232011-10-22T16:29:51.703-04:002011-10-22T16:29:51.703-04:00A few things:
1. Like Phil (I think), if the US a...A few things:<br /><br />1. Like Phil (I think), if the US actually did lower its military expenditure by the amount John seems to favor I would expect other countries to increase theirs. How much? I'm not sure. But if a number of countries increased their budgets by a percentage point of GDP each we might surpass $500bn fairly quickly.<br /><br />2. I think that John is making too little of the differences between the European and American political economies. There's a lot of literature suggesting that fiscal policy creation is different in parliamentary than in presidential systems, and/or different in centripetal than in centrifugal voting systems. Of course there's all the "varieties of capitalism" literature that argues that the US economy is different from Europe in many important ways. <br /><br />Ie, there is little ex ante reason to extrapolate from the European case that lowering spending on guns in the US would increase spending on butter. After all, in recent times the US defense budget was at its lowest during the 1990s... which was also the time of welfare reform, tax cuts on many types of capital, and paying down the debt. No new social spending program of any significance.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-35479790455561056792011-10-22T14:29:08.313-04:002011-10-22T14:29:08.313-04:00To be clear -- of course I'm not denying that ...To be clear -- of course I'm not denying that they are substitutes in the economic sense. Money spent on one is money not available for the other. But your claim that expensive welfare states constrain defense spending does not follow, and social democratic parties do not behave the way you seem to assume that they do. Besides, you are inferring causality from observational data, and that's a dangerous practice on the best of days. How is it that you have determined that having an alliance partner upon whom you can freeride is not the primary reason that European states spend so little on defense?Phil Arenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07914096126693147647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-18228170378128744002011-10-22T14:22:03.676-04:002011-10-22T14:22:03.676-04:00Good post, Kindred.
John, I didn't say that t...Good post, Kindred.<br /><br />John, I didn't say that the US would not increase other spending if it cut defense spending. I said that you could just as easily say that other forms of spending on programs that do not save lives have killed a million people. If a crowd of people watch someone die, then saying that Bob is responsible for the person's death because Bob did not act is sort of true, but also quite misleading.<br /><br />At any rate, I'd be careful about saying the evidence shows that guns and butter are substitutes. That's a long standing *assumption*, but there's actually pretty strong evidence that many governments, particularly social-democratic ones, use defense spending as jobs bills. See this paper:<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00479.x/fullPhil Arenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07914096126693147647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-74130921476552894762011-10-22T07:37:38.458-04:002011-10-22T07:37:38.458-04:00Your penultimate point (also made by Phil) isn'...Your penultimate point (also made by Phil) isn't supported by the evidence. The US spends more on defense than any other developed country, and less on most other kinds of public expenditure.<br /><br />As standard economics would suggest, guns and (publicly provided) butter are substitutes. As the Europeans have shown, the best way to constrain defense waste is to have a very expensive welfare statelJohn Quigginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10830215234726229924noreply@blogger.com