790:"The Pentagon system was considered ideal for these purposes. It imposes on the public a large burden of the costs (research and development, R&D) and provides a guaranteed market for excess production, a useful cushion for management decisions. Furthermore, this form of industrial policy does not have the undesirable side-effects of social spending directed to human needs. Apart from unwelcome redistributive effects, the latter policies tend to interfere with managerial prerogatives; useful production may undercut private gain, while state-subsidized waste production (arms, Man-on-the-Moon extravaganzas, etc.) is a gift to the owner and manager, who will, furthermore, be granted control of any marketable spin-offs.
683:
spent would have been spent somewhere else (the opportunity cost of the military spending), but only 50% of the money spent on the war is inside the country, Keynesian economics would predict that there is a net loss of spending for the war under these circumstances. The reason that this can be ignored internally, is opportunity expense is less than 1, whereas actual expense is equal to one. That said, I would tend to agree with the idea that opportunity cost should not be ignored. If it were presented cleanly in these models, it would remove a common source of criticism of keynes and bring his proponents and opponents closer to a meeting of the minds.
622:
1. politicians are (not necessarily only) lawyer spokesmen for corporate interests, and may not know firsthand the actual impetus for a policy as well as the technocrat insiders. 2 military goals are often the ostensible justification for military keynesianism, since the public at large would prefer social keynesianism. 3. The effect of military spending is military keynesianism, regardless of whether that is the specific desired goal of some politically and economically powerful group. In effect U.s capitalism has survived on military keynesianism since world war two.
733:: "In general, links should be created to... relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question." Since this is an economics-related article, a core concept like a good seems like an appropriate link to me, especially since it isn't linked elsewhere in the article.
243:
222:
529:
191:
414:
561:"There have been no clear cut historical examples of military Keynesianism in action. The reason for this is that the theory of military Keynesianism requires that the increased military spending is intended to fulfill an economic goal (i.e. to enhance growth, or increase employment), however the goal of the military spending has in all cases been to achieve some military, or political goal."
253:
486:
475:
464:
453:
354:
327:
442:
920:
You deleted two citations that offer important perspectives on this issue. I did not find those two citations elsewhere in this article. I haven't studied those two references. However, the two paragraphs you deleted provide objective summaries of comments I've heard elsewhere, and the titles of
621:
yeah I would agree that this article is pretty weak and needs to be substantiated. And is also dispute the same passage. He seems to take politicians words at face value, for example because reagan didn't say military spending was to boost the economy, that it doesn't count as military keynesianis.
927:
I would support changing the heading, e.g., from "Criticisms" to "General comments". I would also support moving those two paragraphs so they become an introduction to the section on "Keynesian
Economics and Application", which currently has no introduction: It just goes directly to a section on
837:
should be merged into a section on this page. Although slightly different, both ideas originate around the same era, with PWE being an observation of the effects of WWII and a prediction that
Military Keynesian would lead into something like the Cold War. I would merge it myself, but the Permanent
606:
In the civilian field, Keynesians use government spending on infrastructure and public works programs to increase overall consumer demand, as well as reductions in interest rates, both in the hope of stimulating the economy into higher growth. Military
Keynesianism is the use of military spending,
572:
The conquest of
Eastern Europe, for example, was intended to open up farmland to feed Germany, to resettle both social undesirables and “warrior-farmers”, to capture racially desirable breeding stock, and to form a buffer from the Soviet Union—a quadruple goal in other words, of which economy is a
568:
Nazi
Germany’s defense build-up was an economic goal, which enhanced the growth of the military and increased employment, thus enhancing the prosperity of the German folk. For that matter, Hitler’s military conquests had an economic goal as well: to sustain Germany on the spoils and slave labor of
682:
A central point of
Keynesianism is that there is a multiplier attached to spending. The fundamental problem of military keynesianism is that the multiplier only applies to a portion of the of the spending, whereas any opportunity cost applies to the whole total. For example, if 60% of the money
799:
The quoted phrase was in fact in regard of the
Pentagon system (a non Military Keynesian system). I think, I am not sure, but he was pointing out the fact that the public will begin to have an opinion (the threat of democracy) about the choice of missile and high-tech fighter planes if that were
576:
The purist definition of military
Keynesianism in this section, being aimed purely at an isolated economic growth, is inconsistent. I say the entire section on Examples of military Keynesianism should be rewritten, either as a different argument, or to at least strengthen the existing one.
795:
The defects of social spending do not taint the military
Keynesian alternative, which had the added advantage that it was well-adapted to the needs of advanced industry: computers and electronics generally, aviation, and a wide range of related technologies and enterprises."
536:
337:
564:
I dispute this passage, because it suggests that economic goals were not part of attaining military or political goals, and because it implies that economic goals exist in a vacuum with no connection to the rest of the world. Both notions are demonstrably false.
792:
Furthermore, social spending may well arouse public interest and participation, thus enhancing the threat of democracy; the public cares about hospitals, roads, neighborhoods, and so on, but has no opinion about the choice of missiles and high-tech fighter
603:. To even discuss "Military Keynesianism" one must discuss Keynesianism. In Woerkilt's post, we did not once see a reference to demand, ot stimulation of the economy. No reference to "pump priming", or "full employment"
153:
1018:
1013:
591:
Military
Keynesianism is not simply using the military to conquer, and plunder other lands. Military Keynesianism is using military spending to stimulate the general economy in the way that Keynes advocated.
147:
427:
404:
366:
595:
The way Woerkilt would define the term (which seems to be "any use of the military to fulfill any economic goal" is so broad as to render it meaningless. He focuses on
413:
44:
309:
79:
946:
Hello, well both of that options can be good and for sure better instead of one pure pov criticsm section what in general should be avoided as per npov. Tnx.
1008:
998:
607:
reductions in interest rates, and conscription into the armed forces (government as the employer of last resort) in the hope of stimulating the economy.
394:
299:
765:
917:: That article says, "An article can report objectively about , as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."
361:
332:
85:
1003:
993:
275:
370:
814:
650:
30:
569:
subjugated nations. Doing so enabled Hitler to maintain caps on inflation rates as well as “trickle down” benefits to the German people.
768:
699:
800:
state spending rather than private spending under state subsidies. So, it is the non-military Keynesian system or Pentagon system who "
266:
227:
99:
168:
104:
20:
135:
74:
741:
202:
65:
258:
759:
129:
766:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2011/11/01/ronald-reagan-practiced-keynesian-economics-successfully
125:
109:
762:
951:
818:
714:
654:
208:
190:
772:
703:
175:
365:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
810:
721:
668:
962:
947:
908:
55:
972:
936:
875:
834:
274:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
24:
730:
70:
889:
885:
843:
839:
838:
war economy page has been up since 2006; in that time, it hasn't grown from more than a paragraph.-
623:
612:
161:
141:
646:
638:
627:
582:
718:
665:
51:
968:
932:
871:
695:
688:
914:
822:
736:
608:
859:
Inserting a "Permanent war economy" section between "Forms" and "Empirical estimates"?
987:
578:
760:
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/19/business/economic-scene-is-reagan-a-keynesian.html
870:
However, feel free to ignore these suggestions if you prefer something different.
242:
221:
862:
Inserting the "References" as a new section before (rather than after) "Notes"?
976:
955:
940:
893:
879:
847:
776:
745:
724:
707:
671:
658:
631:
616:
586:
528:
248:
763:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html
271:
758:
Was Reagan the military keynesianist? Some economists argues that he was.
252:
787:
Here is the whole paragraph where Chomsky is quoted in the article:
913:
I'm reverting your deletion of the "Criticisms" section. You cited
664:
Because it's confusing. Approximately accurate, but confusing. —
353:
326:
802:
can be implemented with less public interest and participation
184:
15:
1019:
Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
527:
412:
1014:
C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
865:
Merging the "See also" sections between the two articles?
921:
those articles sound consistent with the narrative.
804:" not the military Keynesian system as it is mentioned.
884:
I think those are pretty good starting points, thanks.-
160:
425:
This article has been checked against the following
270:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
713:Why? Doesn't seem necessary, and seems a lot like
537:
Military science, technology, and theory task force
510:
424:
174:
924:Are you objecting to the heading "Criticisms"?
967:Done. I hope you find this acceptable. Thanks,
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
8:
379:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
188:
808:
507:
421:
321:
216:
359:This article is within the scope of the
856:What do you think about the following:
323:
218:
369:. To use this banner, please see the
382:Template:WikiProject Military history
284:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Economics
7:
264:This article is within the scope of
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
14:
1009:C-Class military history articles
999:Low-importance Economics articles
557:Examples of Military Keynesianism
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
678:Military vs. Social Keynesianism
484:
473:
462:
451:
440:
352:
325:
251:
241:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
399:This article has been rated as
304:This article has been rated as
1004:WikiProject Economics articles
994:Start-Class Economics articles
287:Template:WikiProject Economics
1:
977:23:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
956:23:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
941:10:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
278:and see a list of open tasks.
259:Business and economics portal
42:Put new text under old text.
894:23:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
880:16:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
848:15:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
777:11:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
362:Military history WikiProject
1035:
823:23:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
746:15:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
725:02:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
708:21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
632:18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
587:22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
445:Referencing and citation:
310:project's importance scale
672:05:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
659:01:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
617:08:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
535:
506:
398:
385:military history articles
347:
303:
236:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
599:, and completely avoids
573:key and integral part.
511:Associated task forces:
456:Coverage and accuracy:
782:
532:
489:Supporting materials:
417:
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
835:Permanent war economy
694:Clarify "goods" with
687:Clarify "goods" with
531:
416:
267:WikiProject Economics
201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
25:Military Keynesianism
105:No original research
478:Grammar and style:
431:for B-class status:
928:"Nazi Germany".
647:Goods and services
639:Goods and services
533:
418:
367:list of open tasks
290:Economics articles
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
902:Criticism section
825:
813:comment added by
554:
553:
550:
549:
546:
545:
542:
541:
502:
501:
447:criterion not met
403:on the project's
371:full instructions
320:
319:
316:
315:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1026:
966:
912:
783:Chomsky's critic
696:Good (economics)
689:Good (economics)
518:
508:
492:
488:
487:
481:
477:
476:
470:
466:
465:
459:
455:
454:
448:
444:
443:
422:
387:
386:
383:
380:
377:
376:Military history
356:
349:
348:
343:
340:
333:Military history
329:
322:
292:
291:
288:
285:
282:
261:
256:
255:
245:
238:
237:
232:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1025:
1024:
1023:
984:
983:
960:
906:
904:
833:I believe that
831:
829:Merger proposal
785:
756:
744:
692:
680:
643:
559:
516:
490:
485:
479:
474:
468:
463:
457:
452:
446:
441:
384:
381:
378:
375:
374:
341:
335:
289:
286:
283:
280:
279:
257:
250:
230:
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1032:
1030:
1022:
1021:
1016:
1011:
1006:
1001:
996:
986:
985:
982:
981:
980:
979:
963:StufffromBuda!
948:StufffromBuda!
909:StufffromBuda!
903:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
868:
867:
866:
863:
860:
854:
830:
827:
815:104.221.53.173
784:
781:
755:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
740:
715:WP:OVERLINKING
691:
685:
679:
676:
675:
674:
651:99.181.157.185
642:
635:
558:
555:
552:
551:
548:
547:
544:
543:
540:
539:
534:
524:
523:
521:
519:
513:
512:
504:
503:
500:
499:
497:
495:
494:
493:
482:
471:
460:
449:
435:
434:
432:
419:
409:
408:
397:
391:
390:
388:
357:
345:
344:
330:
318:
317:
314:
313:
306:Low-importance
302:
296:
295:
293:
276:the discussion
263:
262:
246:
234:
233:
231:Low‑importance
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1031:
1020:
1017:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
991:
989:
978:
974:
970:
964:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
945:
944:
943:
942:
938:
934:
929:
925:
922:
918:
916:
910:
901:
895:
891:
887:
883:
882:
881:
877:
873:
869:
864:
861:
858:
857:
855:
852:
851:
850:
849:
845:
841:
836:
828:
826:
824:
820:
816:
812:
805:
803:
797:
794:
788:
780:
778:
774:
770:
769:185.19.22.198
767:
764:
761:
753:
747:
743:
739:
738:
732:
728:
727:
726:
723:
720:
716:
712:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
700:99.181.145.53
697:
690:
686:
684:
677:
673:
670:
667:
663:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
640:
636:
634:
633:
629:
625:
619:
618:
614:
610:
604:
602:
598:
593:
589:
588:
584:
580:
574:
570:
566:
562:
556:
538:
530:
526:
525:
522:
520:
515:
514:
509:
505:
498:
496:
491:criterion met
483:
480:criterion met
472:
469:criterion met
461:
458:criterion met
450:
439:
438:
437:
436:
433:
430:
429:
423:
420:
415:
411:
410:
406:
405:quality scale
402:
396:
393:
392:
389:
372:
368:
364:
363:
358:
355:
351:
350:
346:
339:
334:
331:
328:
324:
311:
307:
301:
298:
297:
294:
277:
273:
269:
268:
260:
254:
249:
247:
244:
240:
239:
235:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
930:
926:
923:
919:
905:
832:
809:— Preceding
806:
801:
798:
791:
789:
786:
757:
734:
719:Arthur Rubin
693:
681:
666:Arthur Rubin
644:
620:
605:
601:Keynesianism
600:
596:
594:
590:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
426:
400:
360:
305:
265:
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
969:DavidMCEddy
933:DavidMCEddy
872:DavidMCEddy
853:Great idea.
731:WP:OVERLINK
467:Structure:
199:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
988:Categories
886:Somenolife
840:Somenolife
649:removed?
338:Technology
737:Torchiest
609:CMarshall
281:Economics
272:Economics
228:Economics
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
931:Thanks,
811:unsigned
641:removed?
624:Mmuldoor
597:Military
579:Woerkilt
428:criteria
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
793:planes.
645:Why as
637:Why as
401:C-class
342:C‑class
308:on the
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
915:WP:NOT
807:RĂ©my
754:Reagan
722:(talk)
669:(talk)
205:scale.
126:Google
779:alex
742:edits
717:. —
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
973:talk
952:talk
937:talk
890:talk
876:talk
844:talk
819:talk
773:talk
729:Per
704:talk
655:talk
628:talk
613:talk
583:talk
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
698:.
300:Low
176:TWL
990::
975:)
954:)
939:)
892:)
878:)
846:)
821:)
775:)
706:)
657:)
630:)
615:)
585:)
517:/
336::
156:)
54:;
971:(
965::
961:@
950:(
935:(
911::
907:@
888:(
874:(
842:(
817:(
771:(
735:—
702:(
653:(
626:(
611:(
581:(
407:.
395:C
373:.
312:.
211::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
