"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (10 Viewers)

[SaparotRob]

Not to mention the cost savings with not having to dispose of it. Hell, the US should be paying Ukraine to take old stock off their hands!

If only the Russia First crowd would realize this.

 

[Greg Boeser]

We're spending a ridiculously low amount to eliminate the military power of our nation's former primary enemy. AT NO LOSS OF THE LIVES OF OUR GUYS.

Thos last sentence is inaccurate. There are hundreds if not thousands of foreign fighters from the US, Canada, and Europe. My son, a former Marine, was watching a video just last week when he remarked: "I know that guy!"
There have been casualties among "our guys". Many foreigners are in Ukraine, accepting the dangers that come with being in a war zone, and some have paid the ultimate price.

 

[SaparotRob]

Volunteers, not active duty personnel in US service. My statement holds.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was trying to put some of this into context and found that the UK spent on average 40% of its budget on defence spending in WW2.

In 1939 the UK was spending a lot of money on defence but that was 9% of the total budget.

If Russia is getting close to 33% of its budget on Defence in 2023/4, the country is effectively on a War footing in everything but name.

The Russian people will be feeling the bite if not already doing so. Military spending is remarkably uneconomical, it bites into GDP and national incomes as well. Paul Kennedy spells this out at length in RaFotGPs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thos last sentence is inaccurate. There are hundreds if not thousands of foreign fighters from the US, Canada, and Europe. My son, a former Marine, was watching a video just last week when he remarked: "I know that guy!"
There have been casualties among "our guys". Many foreigners are in Ukraine, accepting the dangers that come with being in a war zone, and some have paid the ultimate price.

My son had decided that if the Marines didn't take him, he was going on his own passport to fight there. He's in for the right reasons, I figure, and thankfully, not going into a shitshow ... for now.

I ain't a religious person, but the odd prayer doesn't hurt me anyway.

 

[buffnut453]

The people will be feeling the bite if not already doing so. Military spending is remarkably uneconomical, it bites into GDP and national incomes as well. Paul Kennedy spells this out at length in RaFotGPs.

I'll need to read his work because, in one sense, the Ukraine war is generating good-quality, technical manufacturing jobs in many states. Seems to me that that's a good thing. It's not like it denudes other industries of workers. Employment rates in most western nations range between 2.9% (Germany) and 7.4% (France) (UK is 4.3% and US is 3.8%). We're still some ways from "full" employment.

 

[SaparotRob]

I'll need to read his work because, in one sense, the Ukraine war is generating good-quality, technical manufacturing jobs in many states. Seems to me that that's a good thing. It's not like it denudes other industries of workers. Employment rates in most western nations range between 2.9% (Germany) and 7.4% (France) (UK is 4.3% and US is 3.8%). We're still some ways from "full" employment.

Yup. I would comment more strongly in agreement with you but I would start ranting in the political realm.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll need to read his work because, in one sense, the Ukraine war is generating good-quality, technical manufacturing jobs in many states. Seems to me that that's a good thing. It's not like it denudes other industries of workers. Employment rates in most western nations range between 2.9% (Germany) and 7.4% (France) (UK is 4.3% and US is 3.8%). We're still some ways from "full" employment.

He writes in terms of comparing the expenses of a military expedition compared to the income such expeditions bring back in to the state.

The book is a little dated, but still in print and well worth the read:

 

[buffnut453]

He writes in terms of comparing the expenses of a military expedition compared to the income such expeditions bring back in to the state.

The book is a little dated, but still in print and well worth the read:

View attachment 739787

Ahhh...yes, have that one in my library. It's a good thesis. The subtle difference here is that there is no "expedition" by the western powers. They're simply funneling equipment and some know-how to the Ukrainians (in reality, the know-how flow is very much a 2-way street...and I suspect we learn as much from Ukraine as they learn from us). There's no western "blood capital" involved, and we aren't recruiting more soldiers and hence increasing the human resource costs for our militaries.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ahhh...yes, have that one in my library. It's a good thesis. The subtle difference here is that there is no "expedition" by the western powers. They're simply funneling equipment and some know-how to the Ukrainians (in reality, the know-how flow is very much a 2-way street...and I suspect we learn as much from Ukraine as they learn from us). There's no western "blood capital" involved, and we aren't recruiting more soldiers and hence increasing the human resource costs for our militaries.

Right, there's no HR expenses and little in the way of investment capital as the weapons are already built, and being replaced by newer models.

I was more thinking about how this affects Ukraine's economy. Sure, they may sell some weapons after the war is over, but until then, every dollar they sink into defense is getting expended on the field. It's nonrecoverable loss.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

If only the Russia First crowd would realize this.

Or the "Make Russia Great Again" crowd for that matter.

 

[buffnut453]

Right, there's no HR expenses and little in the way of investment capital as the weapons are already built, and being replaced by newer models.

I was more thinking about how this affects Ukraine's economy. Sure, they may sell some weapons after the war is over, but until then, every dollar they sink into defense is getting expended on the field. It's nonrecoverable loss.

True, but if they lose, they won't have an economy any more because Russia will own their posteriors.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

True, but if they lose, they won't have an economy any more because Russia will own their posteriors.

I'm not arguing they have a choice, I'm pointing out that without our continued support, they're ferfuckled, and that's why we in the West must support them both militarily and economically. Donating old equipment to them, about to be replaced, is a lot better than dropping into some atoll or another.

That's why our support is important -- it will hopefully keep them from being a failed state, allowing them to self-invest. We're already seeing that in firms laying plans for production inside Ukraine itself.

 

[SaparotRob]

..and sales of American weapons are up. 486 new HIMARS sold to Poland. That's one example. That's jobs.
I'm not sure how this iteration of Lend-Lease works but doesn't Ukraine pay only for what it keeps after the war?
And while we're on the subject, you guys chided me a couple of Februarys ago for suggesting sending M-113s to Ukraine.
I wish there was a Bronx cheer emoji.

 

[GrauGeist]

And good ol' Medvedev, on October 1st, said that German Missile manufacturing facilities are now "legitimate" military targets.

Any more, when I read nonsense issuing from Medvedev, I see an image of that fat bastard Goering flopping around a microphone. Which is in keeping with Vladolph Putler's brilliant strategy of reclaiming "lost lands".

So now Germany is added to the list of Russia's dire consequences list and I actually laughed a little at the prospect.

Consider this: Russia strikes Germany, Germany mobilizes and marches across Poland to kick Russia's ass - does this not sound familiar?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And good ol' Medvedev, on October 1st, said that German Missile manufacturing are now "legitimate" military targets.

Any more, when I read nonsense issuing from Medvedev, I see an image of that fat bastard Goering flopping around a microphone. Which is in keeping with Vladolph Putler's brilliant strategy of reclaiming "lost lands".

So now Germany is added to the list of Russia's dire consequences list and I actually laughed a little at the prospect.

Consider this: Russia strikes Germany, Germany mobilizes and marches across Poland to kick Russia's ass - does this not sound familiar?

 

[MiTasol]

I don't think they would march through Poland this time - I think the Poles would lay on express trains right to the border.

 

[SaparotRob]

With light refreshments.

 

[WARSPITER]

With light refreshments.

You mean handing out Molotov cocktails as they get off the train at the Russian border ?
Nice.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Employment rates in most western nations range between 2.9% (Germany) and 7.4% (France) (UK is 4.3% and US is 3.8%). We're still some ways from "full" employment.

Anything below about 4% to 5% unemployment is considered "full" employment (at least in neoclassical economics). Anything below 3% to 3.5% is likely creating major imbalances in the labour market (as we've seen in recent history), unless there are certain structural factors at play (Japan and Iceland say hello).

"Full" is a relative definition though.

There can still be significant underemployment in the workforce. There can be (and is in most Western economies) substantial populations of people who don't want or can't find full time work and rely on part time/casual/on-call/ad hoc arrangements.

Another part of the equation is labour participation rates - what proportion of the available adult population are actually working/want to work/seeking work. The good news here (unless you're an employer) is that participation rates are close to or at record levels for most OECD countries. Most countries have seen labour participation rates increase by 5% to 8% over the last 2 decades. The US is an anomaly here - it's participation rates peaked in the late 1990s and really only started to recover around 2014/2015.

Finally there's hours worked. Over the last two decades, hours worked per employee has fallen from about 1840 per year to 1750 per year (OECD average). There are a number of components to that trend - greater amounts of part-time and temporary employment, older working populations and more gender balance in the workforce.