USA Defence Budget Realities

[Stop SPAM!]

To correct some gross misstatements of fact circulating in these
newsgroups, some facts:

The USA Defence budget for FY2004 is 3.4% of the USA GDP, one of the
smallest in recent history. Since the end of WW II the USA Defence
budget has averaged about 6% (ignoring the Korean war spikes of
10%-14%). So overall the USA Defence budget is down about -40% from Cold
War averages.

By other measures:
1990 2004 Change

Total Active Duty Manpower 2.065.000, 1.388.000, -33%
Air Force Active Duty Wings 24 12 -50%
Army Active Divisions 18 10 -44%
Navy Aircraft Carriers 15 10 -33%

Max annual time away from home is supposed to be no more than 120 days
per year. For many specialized units, it is over 180 and in some cases
over 210 due to budget cuts.

Many Air Force planes and Navy ships are as old as their crews (in some
cases, as old as their crews parents).


Opinion:
The USA (and the rest of the world) faces a significantly greater threat
than during the Cold War. Where the two superpowers once faced off over
nuclear fences, now the entire world is at risk from uprisings national,
tribal and religious; NGOs waging asymmetric warfare, and a return to
the generally chaotic world state more prevalant in the 2000 years
before the relatively stable "Pax Cold War" enforced by the USSR and the
USA between 1945 and 1989. This certainly requires someone in the world
to remain an effective force; neither the UN or the EU (i.e., France and
Germany) have the political will necessary to fund, train and maintain
an effective military, further they are lacking the political will
necessary to use force when necessary; rather, they revert back to the
1939 position of appeasement at any cost.

And yet the UN and the EU castigate the USA for continuing to maintain a
reasonable military when they themselves are unable gather the political
will to intercede anywhere, much less being able to field even a
minimally effective force.

If the UN or the EU wish to become world players again they must develop
the strength to do so; whining from the sidelines because they are
unable to influence world events due to lack of a military able to
project sufficient force to overcome even a third-world dictator who
cunningly refuses to roll over and die when threatened with being bored
to death with pronouncements instead of actions translates to a
second-rate place in the world.

[Steven James Forsberg]

In sci.military.naval Stop SPAM! > wrote:
: To correct some gross misstatements of fact circulating in these
: newsgroups, some facts:

: The USA Defence budget for FY2004 is 3.4% of the USA GDP, one of the
: smallest in recent history. Since the end of WW II the USA Defence
: budget has averaged about 6% (ignoring the Korean war spikes of
: 10%-14%). So overall the USA Defence budget is down about -40% from Cold
: War averages.

But compare the total dollars spent by the US military with the
total dollars spent by the rest-of-world -- especially now that there is
no USSR stripping itself to build a military that can compete with ours.
Manpower is down (Rumsfeld wants it lower) and there are fewer 'units', but
the US has very intentionally been 'transforming' into much higher capability
and lethality units, even if it can't afford them in great numbers. In WWII
we had a lot more ships, yet, but the modern navy is very much more powerful.
And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.

regards,
------------------------------------------

[Vince Brannigan]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

>Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
>
>: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
>:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
>:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
>:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
>
>It might, but it doesn't.
>
>
>
The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
necessary. . The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
military, the less the GDP. As many people pointed out the high
expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
bankrupted the country.

Vince

[Denyav]

>The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
>bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
>necessary. . The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
>spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
>military, the less the GDP. As many people pointed out the high
>expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
>bankrupted the country.
>
>Vince

Depends on the way how you use military power.
If you cannot buy a better bicycle ,buying bicycle locks might be the best
solution.
(At least they help you to keep your current bike)

[Ceesco]

> The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
> spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
> military, the less the GDP.

What part of "spending as a percentage of GDP" do you clearly not get?


> As many people pointed out the high
> expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
> bankrupted the country.

Want to take a guess at Soviet GDP figures and the percentage spent on
military applications?

[Kevin Brooks]

Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> >Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
> >
> >: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
> >:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
> >:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
> >:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
> >
> >It might, but it doesn't.
> >
> >
> >
> The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
> bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
> necessary. .

Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working, and new products
rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
GDP, if you had not noticed).

The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
> spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
> military, the less the GDP.

Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.

As many people pointed out the high
> expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
> bankrupted the country.

Apples, meet oranges, courtesy of Vkince.

Brooks

>
> Vince

[Steven James Forsberg]

In sci.military.naval Kevin Brooks > wrote:
: Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
:> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> >Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
:> >
:> >: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
:> >:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
:> >:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
:> >:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
:> >
:> >It might, but it doesn't.
:> >
:> >
:> >
:> The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
:> bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
:> necessary. .

: Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working, and new products
: rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
: customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
: GDP, if you had not noticed).

: The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
:> spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
:> military, the less the GDP.

: Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
: sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.

And, of course, add to the sum worldwide total of military
threat, thereby justifying another round of development, which you'll sell
to make money, which will raise threat..... hmmmm? Like the AF justifying
F-22 because "so many" (like Canada and UK) nations have high-tech fighters.
Well, maybe we should embargo them....

regards,
-------------------------------------------


`ZZ

[Kevin Brooks]

Steven James Forsberg > wrote in message >...
> In sci.military.naval Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> : Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> :> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :>
> :> >Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
> :> >
> :> >: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
> :> >:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
> :> >:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
> :> >:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
> :> >
> :> >It might, but it doesn't.
> :> >
> :> >
> :> >
> :> The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
> :> bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
> :> necessary. .
>
> : Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working, and new products
> : rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
> : customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
> : GDP, if you had not noticed).
>
> : The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
> :> spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
> :> military, the less the GDP.
>
> : Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
> : sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.
>
> And, of course, add to the sum worldwide total of military
> threat, thereby justifying another round of development, which you'll sell
> to make money, which will raise threat..... hmmmm? Like the AF justifying
> F-22 because "so many" (like Canada and UK) nations have high-tech fighters.
> Well, maybe we should embargo them....

You want to debate the morality of weapons development, find somebody
else. The issue here was the impact of defense spending upon the GDP.

Brooks

>
> regards,
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
> `ZZ

[Fred J. McCall]

Vince Brannigan > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:>Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
:>
:>: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
:>:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
:>:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
:>:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
:>
:>It might, but it doesn't.
:
:The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
:bicycle.

Note that buying a better bicycle doesn't do anything for the economy,
either. Reinvesting to DEVELOP the better bicycle does that.
Speaking broadly, there is no difference between the production of
military goods and the production of consumer goods insofar as
economic growth is concerned.

:Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
:necessary. . The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
:spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
:military, the less the GDP.

Not necessarily. It depends on what alternative use the resources
would have been put to.

:As many people pointed out the high
:expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
:bankrupted the country.

It certainly helped, but they were an extreme case. In the general
case, the dividing line for real economic damage is generally regarded
to be around 10% of GDP diverted to military spending. Note that the
Soviet Union FAR exceeded that level in real economic terms and it was
the BEST part of their economy being redirected, which heightens the
impact.

Explain Japan's economic problems, given that they spend a minuscule
amount on military development and procurement, if you believe this is
the root of economic problems.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Vince Brannigan]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
>
>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
>>>
>>>: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
>>>:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
>>>:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
>>>:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
>>>
>>>It might, but it doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
>>bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
>>necessary. .
>
>
> Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working,

you can keep folks "working" as prison guards, but it doesnt make crime
"productive" Producte work produces new goods, service and human
capital that supports future productivity. Now being 'unproductive"
does not in and of itself make an expenditure wrong. as adam smith
said the whole end of society is consumption, productivity is a means ot
an end.

and new products
> rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
> customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
> GDP, if you had not noticed).

Selling weapons overses is not unproductive in terms of the GDP.
howeverif it was a good busness decison, comapnies woudl fund the R& D
themselves. Tehy dont becsue it sint. it does reduce the loss but it
does nto turn it into a productive investment.


> The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
>
>>spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
>>military, the less the GDP.
>
>
> Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
> sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.
>

Not on net.. you only add to the GDP if tge investment iws greater than
the opportunity cost. its liek borrowing money at 10 percent to ivest
at 5 percent. you dont get to count just the profit.

if weapons exports were a good business, comanies would and used to go
into the business. they are not a very good busness anymore. which is
why companies rely on start up purchases by government ot fund the
overhead cost.

It has cost the USA over 10 Billion dollars in development costs for the
V-22. At the moment its as productive as a non working bicycle lock.
Even if it works it is unclear that the investment will ever be recoved
in any way shape or form.


Vince

[Vince Brannigan]

Kevin Brooks wrote:


>
> You want to debate the morality of weapons development, find somebody
> else. The issue here was the impact of defense spending upon the GDP.
>

The point is complex but connected. lets say you use your bicycle to
deliver a load of bolt cutters to your local bicycle thieves and
therefore have to spend your income from delivering the boltcutters on a
better lock. you can work very hard but never live any better.

Vince

[Fred J. McCall]

Vince Brannigan > wrote:

:Ceesco wrote:
:>>The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
:>>spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
:>>military, the less the GDP.
:>
:> What part of "spending as a percentage of GDP" do you clearly not get?
:
:What part of current verus future GDP did you not get? Every dollar
:spend on the military means a lwoer GDP in the future.

As does every dollar spent on consumer goods. Of course, that means
that all we should be producing is equipment to produce more equipment
to produce things, by your reasoning. How long do you think THAT can
sustain itself?

:> Want to take a guess at Soviet GDP figures and the percentage spent on
:> military applications?
:
:My sources tell me it approach 30 % but htat all analysis of Soviet GDP
:are complicated by the lack of a national accounts system/

In numbers it was lower than that, but once you take into account that
the highest quality portions of their economy were dedicated to
defense spending, the number you give is probably not far wrong.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Vince Brannigan]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>
> :Ceesco wrote:
> :>>The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
> :>>spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
> :>>military, the less the GDP.
> :>
> :> What part of "spending as a percentage of GDP" do you clearly not get?
> :
> :What part of current verus future GDP did you not get? Every dollar
> :spend on the military means a lwoer GDP in the future.
>
> As does every dollar spent on consumer goods.

not on durable goods, nor on the facilties needed to produce ccosnnumer
goods and services. Its not a very complicated concept. The
relationship of wealth and consumption is the heart or economics

military productio9n is esentially "current consumption" either it
crowds out current civilain consumption (guns v butter) ro it crowds out
future consumption (investment verusus consumption


Vince



Of course, that means
> that all we should be producing is equipment to produce more equipment
> to produce things, by your reasoning. How long do you think THAT can
> sustain itself?
>
> :> Want to take a guess at Soviet GDP figures and the percentage spent on
> :> military applications?
> :
> :My sources tell me it approach 30 % but htat all analysis of Soviet GDP
> :are complicated by the lack of a national accounts system/
>
> In numbers it was lower than that, but once you take into account that
> the highest quality portions of their economy were dedicated to
> defense spending, the number you give is probably not far wrong.
>

[Kevin Brooks]

Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
> >>>:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
> >>>:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
> >>>:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
> >>>
> >>>It might, but it doesn't.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
> >>bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
> >>necessary. .
> >
> >
> > Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working,
>
> you can keep folks "working" as prison guards, but it doesnt make crime
> "productive" Producte work produces new goods, service and human
> capital that supports future productivity. Now being 'unproductive"
> does not in and of itself make an expenditure wrong. as adam smith
> said the whole end of society is consumption, productivity is a means ot
> an end.

GDP is the sum of products and *services*; those prison guards provide
a required service, and their contribution is indeed reflected in the
GDP.

>
> and new products
> > rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
> > customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
> > GDP, if you had not noticed).
>
> Selling weapons overses is not unproductive in terms of the GDP.
> howeverif it was a good busness decison, comapnies woudl fund the R& D
> themselves. Tehy dont becsue it sint. it does reduce the loss but it
> does nto turn it into a productive investment.

The major reason they don't is that they can't *afford* that kind of
capital investment--only governments can. And governements do so
because (a) they need the service, and (b) they realize they will
receive some degree of return on the investment in the long run.

>
>
> > The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
> >
> >>spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
> >>military, the less the GDP.
> >
> >
> > Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
> > sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.
> >
>
> Not on net.. you only add to the GDP if tge investment iws greater than
> the opportunity cost. its liek borrowing money at 10 percent to ivest
> at 5 percent. you dont get to count just the profit.

I would strongly suspect that the F-16, which has sold less than half
its total production to the USAF (the remainder going to foreign
sales), and then seen a significant number of its own early build
aircraft resold or leased to other nations, would likely come out on
the plus side, especially when the attendant services, rebuilds, and
modifications are included.

>
> if weapons exports were a good business, comanies would and used to go
> into the business. they are not a very good busness anymore. which is
> why companies rely on start up purchases by government ot fund the
> overhead cost.

They do so because the development costs are too high and thee risk
too great for any entity other than a government to be able to handle
it.

>
> It has cost the USA over 10 Billion dollars in development costs for the
> V-22. At the moment its as productive as a non working bicycle lock.
> Even if it works it is unclear that the investment will ever be recoved
> in any way shape or form.

Trust you to bring the Osprey into the mix. Are you prepared to bet
your life's savings that the civil version built by AB won't be a
moneymaker? And BTW, it has flown, and it does have firm orders on the
books.

Brooks

>
>
> Vince

[Vince Brannigan]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You want to debate the morality of weapons development, find somebody
>>>else. The issue here was the impact of defense spending upon the GDP.
>>>
>>
>>The point is complex but connected. lets say you use your bicycle to
>>deliver a load of bolt cutters to your local bicycle thieves and
>>therefore have to spend your income from delivering the boltcutters on a
>>better lock. you can work very hard but never live any better.
>>
>>Vince
>
>
> Stop wandering away from the argument at hand, which was not about
> bikes or boltcutters, but about the GDP, which, contrary to your
> claim, can be contributed to by defense expenditure. Defense
> expenditure is what brought you this medium to debate the issue
> within, for gosh sakes.

nonsense The same money spent in the civilian side is simply much more
productive. If command economies worked to increase productivity,
communism would work. The DOD is a command economy. Command economies
are very good ways to organize consumption of public goods. e.g.
national parks or the navy. There is simply no evidence that they are
equally effective at increasing productivity. As I pointed out the Arpa
program was simply a way of funneling money into a civilian research
infrastructure.

If military psendign was productive peopel would orgianze comapneis and
go into the business. its isnt, primarily becsue so much of the money
is inevitably spent on useless activites.

Anytine you take stored wealth and convert it into "something" you
technically increase the GDP by the expenditure. but unlesss the
expenditure creates somethign that produces a further streaem of goods
and services, it is merely consumption.


Vince



Vince

[Vince Brannigan]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
>>>>>:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
>>>>>:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
>>>>>:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
>>>>>
>>>>>It might, but it doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
>>>>bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
>>>>necessary. .
>>>
>>>
>>>Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working,
>>
>>you can keep folks "working" as prison guards, but it doesnt make crime
>>"productive" Producte work produces new goods, service and human
>>capital that supports future productivity. Now being 'unproductive"
>>does not in and of itself make an expenditure wrong. as adam smith
>>said the whole end of society is consumption, productivity is a means ot
>>an end.
>
>
> GDP is the sum of products and *services*; those prison guards provide
> a required service, and their contribution is indeed reflected in the
> GDP.

so is the value of owner occupied housing

OWNER OCCUPIED: A building or residence (especially a house) that
is occupied or lived in by those who have legal ownership. The direct
contrast to owner occupied is a rental unit. This term tends to surface
most often in the study of economics when calculating Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). In particular, the estimated rent on owner occupied
housing is calculated by the folks at the Bureau of Economic Analysis
and included in value of GDP.

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls_src.pl?fcd=dsp&key=owner+occupied

there is a difference however between

1) the contribution of building a house (productive investment)

2) living in the house. (consumption of the stream of services
produced by the asset)

3) burning down the house and rebuilding it.

To use a famous example. If I throw a brick through a window and a
glazier repairs it for $200 that $200 goes into the GDP, but we are no
better off since we lost the "wealth" Throwing bricks through windows
is an unproductive act even though it increases the GDP

so some activities in the GDP are investment,(increae future GDP) some
are consumption ( no affect on future gdp) and some are stupid (reduce
future GDP)


Vince






> Trust you to bring the Osprey into the mix. Are you prepared to bet
> your life's savings that the civil version built by AB won't be a
> moneymaker? And BTW, it has flown, and it does have firm orders on the
> books.

12 billion in subsidized investment would normally produce a sure thing.
be my guest and invest in "osprey civil spin off" if you like

The maryland lottery is a better investment.

Vince

[ZZBunker]

Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>>Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
> >>>>>:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
> >>>>>:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
> >>>>>:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It might, but it doesn't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
> >>>>bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
> >>>>necessary. .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working,
> >>
> >>you can keep folks "working" as prison guards, but it doesnt make crime
> >>"productive" Producte work produces new goods, service and human
> >>capital that supports future productivity. Now being 'unproductive"
> >>does not in and of itself make an expenditure wrong. as adam smith
> >>said the whole end of society is consumption, productivity is a means ot
> >>an end.
> >
> >
> > GDP is the sum of products and *services*; those prison guards provide
> > a required service, and their contribution is indeed reflected in the
> > GDP.
>
> so is the value of owner occupied housing

No. Since we always have to remind Lawyers & pychologists
that Prison guards don't live in houses, they live in the Big House,
which don't even have backdoors, so they be occupied,
since they're on work release.




>
> OWNER OCCUPIED: A building or residence (especially a house) that
> is occupied or lived in by those who have legal ownership. The direct
> contrast to owner occupied is a rental unit. This term tends to surface
> most often in the study of economics when calculating Gross Domestic
> Product (GDP). In particular, the estimated rent on owner occupied
> housing is calculated by the folks at the Bureau of Economic Analysis
> and included in value of GDP.
>
> http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls_src.pl?fcd=dsp&key=owner+occupied
>
> there is a difference however between
>
> 1) the contribution of building a house (productive investment)
>
> 2) living in the house. (consumption of the stream of services
> produced by the asset)
>
> 3) burning down the house and rebuilding it.
>
> To use a famous example. If I throw a brick through a window and a
> glazier repairs it for $200 that $200 goes into the GDP, but we are no
> better off since we lost the "wealth" Throwing bricks through windows
> is an unproductive act even though it increases the GDP

Throwing bricks through the *right* window is
an enormously productive and profitable buisness.
But nobody ever expected anti-gun Lawyers,
to know anything about either glass, bullets,
or intelligence.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin
Brooks > writes
>Vince Brannigan > wrote in message
>...
>> Not on net.. you only add to the GDP if tge investment iws greater than
>> the opportunity cost. its liek borrowing money at 10 percent to ivest
>> at 5 percent. you dont get to count just the profit.
>
>I would strongly suspect that the F-16, which has sold less than half
>its total production to the USAF (the remainder going to foreign
>sales), and then seen a significant number of its own early build
>aircraft resold or leased to other nations, would likely come out on
>the plus side, especially when the attendant services, rebuilds, and
>modifications are included.

That's one example. How many F-101s, F-102s, F-105s or F-106s were
exported? (The Lightweight Fighter Mafia would claim that the USAF had
to be forced to buy F-16s at gunpoint, but then I disagree with them
too)

Also, the "export sale" argument is open to some argument. US FMS is a
killer in the export market, simply because the US is often willing to
effectively _pay_ customers to accept platforms (that will then be tied
to US suppliers for spares, support and reloads).

>> It has cost the USA over 10 Billion dollars in development costs for the
>> V-22. At the moment its as productive as a non working bicycle lock.
>> Even if it works it is unclear that the investment will ever be recoved
>> in any way shape or form.
>
>Trust you to bring the Osprey into the mix. Are you prepared to bet
>your life's savings that the civil version built by AB won't be a
>moneymaker?

My own gut feeling is that it won't succeed in the US, and will be
marginal elsewhere.

What does it do in the civil sector that beats a helo for VTOL or a
puddlejumper for STOVL? When "real performance on a hot day" hits
payload needs, I'm not sure the Osprey delivers (to say nothing of
casual short-notice air travel over city centres... is that safe?)

>And BTW, it has flown, and it does have firm orders on the
>books.

Thirty years ago, so did Concorde. Everything worked technically, but
there was no market pull for mass production. There just aren't that
many people who will pay to halve their trans-Atlantic flight time, now
or then, to justify more than a few prototypes..

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam