Basically, U.S. gov't spending (all expenditures combined) remained stable (growing steadily at a very slight rate) for peacetime periods from the advent of our society until about 1930, having spiked during major conflicts then returned to pre-wartime levels. Then it rose sharply during the depression years, then again dipping slightly before spiking to nearly 50% of the GNP during WWII. Instead of returning to pre-wartime levels (about 5%) it only lessened to about 15%, and began steadily increasing. I fully expected to see a spike in gov't spending as a whole during the Reagan administration years (1980-88) but the fact is there was no spike.
the source of this information is here; the article is interesting reading, but this is the graph.
According to the figures in the U.S. News & World Report article:
U.S. defense spending for 2002 was $348.5 billion, or 3.3% of GNP. China was next on the military spending list in actual dollars ($55.9 billion, at 4.1% of GNP) followed by Russia ($50.8 billion, 4.8% of GNP).
During the Reagan administration, military spending progressed from about 5% of GNP to peak at about 6-7% (best estimate from the graph I'm looking at) and returned to 5% by the time Bush took office. Military spending continued to fall steadily throughout Bush's and Clinton's administrations to a low of about 2%, and has since risen to approximately 3%; it's projected that the end figure for 2005 will be about 3.5% of the GNP.
Bearing in mind that military spending has actually decreased steadily over the last 25 years, it's interesting just how much gov't spending on the whole has increased!
My main point though, is that from the figures I've seen, contrary to popular opinion (including my own), any increases in military spending during the end of the Cold War must have been from cutbacks in gov't spending in other areas and/or the economy must have been growing proportionately- because the gov't's overall spending wasn't significantly impacted.
Doing a little more digging, I found the U.S. Dept. of Defense budget report for fiscal year 2003, in PDF format (available here) and pulled this from it. The report generally uses Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rather than Gross National Product (GNP) when contrasting the military's allotment of gov't spending to economic indicators. From the dictionary definitions I can find, the two terms seem interchangeable. GDP is generally considered to be the standard indicator of the state of the economy, and is defined as the "total market values of goods and services produced by workers and capital within U.S. borders during a given period, usually 1 year".
According to the data above, the Defense Dept. budget increased from about 49% of GDP to about 70% during the Reagan administration. Another table in that same report indicated that defense spending roughly doubled in absolute dollars during the 1980s. If my math is correct, I believe it follows then that GDP increased by roughly 250% in the same period, or 25% more rapidly than military spending in absolute dollars. See a flaw in my analysis (always possible)? Email me!
No comments:
Post a Comment
authors of respectful and/or good-natured comments are welcomed with the full hospitality of the proprietor, and offered a comfortable chair in the warm glow of the hearth.
miscreants will be silenced, and hunted down by an ever-growing, unsleeping horde of darkly efficient Hideous Minions, each more terrible than the last, singularly and collectively gripped with an insatiable lust to brutally inflict whatever arbitrary and horribly whimsical retribution seems most ridiculously inappropriate to them at the time.