Talk:Military Keynesianism

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

"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."

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.

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 subjugated nations. Doing so enabled Hitler to maintain caps on inflation rates as well as “trickle down” benefits to the German people.

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 key and integral part.

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. Woerkilt (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Military, and completely avoids Keynesianism. 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"

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, reductions in interest rates, and conscription into the armed forces (government as the employer of last resort) in the hope of stimulating the economy. CMarshall (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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. Mmuldoor (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why as Goods and services removed? 99.181.157.185 (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's confusing. Approximately accurate, but confusing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

Clarify "goods" with Good (economics). 99.181.145.53 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Doesn't seem necessary, and seems a lot like WP:OVERLINKING. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OVERLINK: "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. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was Reagan the military keynesianist? Some economists argues that he was. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/19/business/economic-scene-is-reagan-a-keynesian.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2011/11/01/ronald-reagan-practiced-keynesian-economics-successfully 185.19.22.198 (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)alex[reply]

Here is the whole paragraph where Chomsky is quoted in the article:

"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. 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 planes. 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."

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 state spending rather than private spending under state subsidies. So, it is the non-military Keynesian system or Pentagon system who "can be implemented with less public interest and participation" not the military Keynesian system as it is mentioned.

Rémy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.221.53.173 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Permanent war economy 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 war economy page has been up since 2006; in that time, it hasn't grown from more than a paragraph.-Somenolife (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea.

What do you think about the following:

• Inserting a "Permanent war economy" section between "Forms" and "Empirical estimates"?
• Inserting the "References" as a new section before (rather than after) "Notes"? [To me, that seems more consistent with the style in many refereed academic journals that cite works like, e.g., Oakes (1944).]
• Merging the "See also" sections between the two articles?

However, feel free to ignore these suggestions if you prefer something different. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are pretty good starting points, thanks.-Somenolife (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StufffromBuda!: I'm reverting your deletion of the "Criticisms" section. You cited WP:NOT: That article says, "An article can report objectively about [Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment], as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."

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 those articles sound consistent with the narrative.

Are you objecting to the heading "Criticisms"?

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 "Nazi Germany".

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. StufffromBuda! (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StufffromBuda!: Done. I hope you find this acceptable. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]