It is intuitive and self-evident that money spent on death, destruction, munitions, and war machines detracts from the economy and society.

The money is subtracted from the economy and from society and nothing is returned.

The US and Europe will face a long period recovering from the damage that has been inflicted by the wars it has been fomenting.

War is not good for the economy or society.

https://warpreventioninitiative.org/peace-science-digest/effects-military-spending-economic-growth/#:~:text=Increased%20military%20spending%20leads%20to,country's%20economic%20growth%20by%209%25.


Quote:

The Effects of Military Spending on Economic Growth This analysis summarizes and reflects on the following research: d’Agostino, G., Dunne, J. P., & Pieroni, L. (2017). Does military spending matter for long-run growth?. Defence and Peace Economics, 1-8. Talking Points Increased military spending leads to slower economic growth. Military spending tends to have a negative impact on economic growth. Over a 20-year period, a 1% increase in military spending will decrease a country’s economic growth by 9%. Increased military spending is especially detrimental to the economic growth of wealthier countries. Summary The debate over how military spending impacts a country’s economy has been fiercely argued, and the results of studies trying to understand this relationship have been mixed. Early researchers ran into trouble due to inadequate time frame or country data. Others have studied only certain types of countries or periods in time, leading to results that could arguably be caused by other social, political, or economic factors. Past research, for example, was highly influenced by military spending data in the Cold War era. After the Cold War, the reduced military spending was matched with an era of strong economic growth, which provided for a very different economic environment than what was seen during periods of high military spending during the Cold War era. To overcome past limitations, this study analyzes military spending by a large and diverse group of countries over the span of 45 years, with special attention to global events that may otherwise influence major economies. In this study, the authors consider two main questions: (1) is long-run economic growth affected by military spending; and (2) do other types of government spending have any significant impact on economic growth? The second question is asked to identify if military spending specifically affects economic growth, or if government spending in general affects growth. To further narrow the scope of their research, the authors also break the countries down into different income levels to see if the economic growth/military spending relationship affects wealthy countries differently than less wealthy countries. To build their study, the authors use military spending information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) dataset. The data includes government spending on current military forces and activities including salaries, benefits, operational expenses, arms and equipment purchases, military construction, research and development, central administration, and command and support. The SIPRI dataset covers 170 countries and extends back to 1949 for most countries (1957 for some). Available data from the World Penn Table dataset restricts the authors’ starting year to 1970, but provides country-specific per capita gross domestic product (GDP), private investment, employment growth, and current GDP. This allows the authors to accurately compare a country’s military spending to its economic growth. Their results show that increased military spending has consistently negative impacts on a country’s economic growth. This even is the case when analyzing different time periods and countries with varying GDPs, as well as when comparing military spending to other forms of government spending. When analyzing all countries together, the findings show that over a 20-year period, a 1% increase in military spending decreases economic growth by 9%. The negative economic impact is especially apparent for most countries in the “Global North,” as seen in the authors’ observation of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member states. Although there was also a negative economic impact to military spending in non-OECD countries, the negative economic impact in OECD countries was much more pronounced. Contemporary Relevance There is a popular assumption that war, or even increased military spending, will boost a nation’s economy. True, when a nation goes to war the surge of government investment into war-related industries can lead to short-term economic gains. However, these gains are short-lived, affect only certain, usually isolated, industries (“conflict industry”, “war profiteers”), and are no consolation for the long-term economic cost of war. A study of six major U.S. wars (World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) finds the costs of war to negatively affect the national economy, taxes, debt, jobs, investment, and inflation.[1] Key findings of the report show that in most wars public debt, inflation, and tax rates increase, consumption and investment decrease, and military spending displaces more productive government investment in high-tech industries, education, or infrastructure ...

The key points are reiterated.

The UK is a prime example that wealthier countries are more affected by the detrimentalml effects of military expenditure. The UK never recovered from WW2 and has gone downhill since as the GBP v USD continuous decline since 1939 demonstrates.

Increased military spending leads to slower economic growth.

Military spending tends to have a negative impact on economic growth.

Over a 20-year period, a 1% increase in military spending will decrease a country’s economic growth by 9%.

Increased military spending is especially detrimental to the economic growth of wealthier countries.

And everyone else is armed to the teeth ... even developing nations near us - some that we helped arm ...

yet we couldn't defend ourselves against aggression from any quarter.

Even from your types within. You should be run out on a rail.

Gnads wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 1:03pm:

And everyone else is armed to the teeth ... even developing nations near us - some that we helped arm ... yet we couldn't defend ourselves against aggression from any quarter. Even from your types within. You should be run out on a rail.

Gnads is so hateful, hostile, disgruntled, and dissatisfied it will be a pleasure to see him pacified by Islam when it overwhelms him and converts him to love and peace.

Gnads is so infuriated by hate he is unsure of who he hates and lashes out blindly.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 12:37pm:

It is intuitive and self-evident that money spent on death, destruction, munitions, and war machines detracts from the economy and society. The money is subtracted from the economy and from society and nothing is returned.

Hamas spending on rockets and tunnels and suicide bombers is a case in point.

Everyone recovered from WWII ‘cause Germany and Japan didn’t win.

Frank wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 2:24pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 12:37pm: It is intuitive and self-evident that money spent on death, destruction, munitions, and war machines detracts from the economy and society. The money is subtracted from the economy and from society and nothing is returned. Hamas spending on rockets and tunnels and suicide bombers is a case in point.

Palestinians have a duty, not just a right, to resist occupation.

Israeli Palestinians are starting to implement terrorist attacks. They know they are next if the Gazans and the West Bank Palestinians are gone.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 12:37pm:

War is not good for the economy or society.

'Palestinians have a duty, not just a right, to resist occupation.

Israeli Palestinians are starting to implement terrorist attacks.'
signed
Laugh and Cry

Quote:

Military spending degrades economy and society

How does it compare to being invaded?

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2024 at 8:35am:

Quote: Military spending degrades economy and society How does it compare to being invaded?

By the US or Israel?

The USA is the only country that invades other countries.

Have you converted to Islam?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran
laughing crying

chimera wrote on Jul 7^th, 2024 at 9:01am:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran laughing crying

Instigated, sponsored, and armed by the USA.

The USA also supplied Saddam Hussein with illegal chemical weapons.

https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2003/09/768bb590-1fb1-46d6-bad6-2eb9f3f7a3126f4703e179d74d4b9e5978276011e424.jpeg

Muhammad was a US agent and munitions producer from Mecca.  Situated within the Colorado Desert, Mecca has an arid desert climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca,_California   Senator Sadam Hussein (Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party) served under George Bush (peace be upon him) who invaded and colonised Iran, investing $3.8 trillion in Ayatollah Arms Inc.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 1:11pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 4th, 2024 at 1:03pm: And everyone else is armed to the teeth ... even developing nations near us - some that we helped arm ... yet we couldn't defend ourselves against aggression from any quarter. Even from your types within. You should be run out on a rail. Gnads is so hateful, hostile, disgruntled, and dissatisfied it will be a pleasure to see him pacified by Islam when it overwhelms him and converts him to love and peace. Gnads is so infuriated by hate he is unsure of who he hates and lashes out blindly.

Pretty sure I've expressed that clearly.