How exactly is planet Earth able to afford all the recent rearmament we've seen?

How exactly is planet Earth able to afford all the recent rearmament we've seen? I'm trying to get my head around the sheer economics of everything this entails and it's breaking my mind.

From the smallest tribal blacksmith in the Amazon to giga-factories the US, everyone is unable to meet demand and it's gone that way from a relative standing start - yes Cold War spending dwarfed current level as a % but that was done during very different time for the global economy. This is now the same global economy that is trying to recover from a global pandemic, pivoting away from hyper-globalisation, suffering catastrophic shortages of skills, the price of a hamburger is inflating away, half the planet sees overpopulation while the other productive half can't get a girlfriend and we have whole new economies from space, to AI to meta-materials that all need 10s of trillions of investment to retool economies.

I think you see where I'm going with this. How is the defence economics of the current climate meant to mesh with the macroeconomics? How painful is the whiplash going to be when it hits us?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Increase in productivity through technology. 3D printerss will become dramatically better in the near future too.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you can't possibly think that's a good measure of worker productivity. it's a flat fricking sum. you've just graphed asset price inflation

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You like this graph more?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I like it a little more but it still has issues as a datapoint because it's flat, it hasn't been scaled against population growth or anything like that. It gives me no frame of reference for how much more productive the average worker has become.

          What if global population grew at a way faster rate and we're actually falling behind in automation? What if the average robot is less efficient but cheaper so we have a higher gross amount? You see what I mean?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What if global population grew at a way faster rate and we're actually falling behind in automation?
            Why care about the global population and not individual countries?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I said global population because you linked the global number of robots. I'm telling you the data you've chosen is shit. How are you not understand this I couldn't have been more clear. To quantify the improvements you need to track value added and take the ratio of machinery to workers.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You raise a good point but nobody has the data needed to make that happen
                Incredibly flawed as it is, the best you can do is take GDP per capita and add certain quality of life metrics, such as expected lifespan
                >this is assuming such data is trustworthy; I wouldn't give a fig for Russian or Chinese statistics for example

                You also need to track the service economy because knowledge workers add so much. try manufacturing anything at 21st century rates without computer programmers, for example.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it doesn't. Inflation in the US is like half of that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you've just graphed asset price inflation
        Bro thinks inflation has gone up 400% in 30 years

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >3D printerss will become dramatically better in the near future too.
      This meme again? 3d printers will never be used for mass production except for designs only a 3d printer can do. They are amazing for prototyping, but they are sloooooooow. An actual production line for something like artillery shells could pump out thousands of shells a day, it would take a thousand printers to do that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Something I'm surprised I don't see done a lot more often for projects that require a bunch of the same part is using 3D printers to create a mold. You could even cast metal parts this way without having to buy one of those super expensive laser sintering machines.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    we are going to have to act, if we want to live in a different world

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >suffering catastrophic shortages of skills
    I am here to state this just employers spending decades being too cheap to properly develop and maintain their workers or keep up with rising housing costs.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrr.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The world isn't suddenly poor moron.
    We have high standards of living we maintain because we can.
    We are more capable now than at any point in history.
    We can absolutely afford infinite wars as long as our population remains alive.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >We are more capable now than at any point in history.
      Biggest myth of our times. Once coal and easily extractable oil sources with sky-high EROEI ran out, we've been on a downward slide.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong.
        You are moronic but it's ok.
        We have the capability. We have the energy, we have better mining capabilities.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not to mention all that absurd amount of food going to thirdies could, through oil processing alone, fuel a world war several times over on its own.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ukraine is still sending free grain to Africa. The israelites won't let a world war slow down the growth of the brown swarm.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Keep your /misc/ shit out of my hypotheticals moron, they need to money from the grain to barter for weapons and troop wages, it's not because of "muh Black folk taking over plot" and you're moronic for thinking otherwise.
              Trade is complex, I was dumbing this shit down because otherwise it wouldn't fit into a post.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, they're sending it for free. It's food aid. They get nothing for it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's totally free guys there are no obligations we get nothing for it let's just give it away to random other nations for nothing in return
                Are you moronic or is it just a brain parasite. You have no idea how barter for this stuff works do you.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Once we have nuclear fusion coal and easily extractable oil won't be needed anymore.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        There's plenty of coal and oil sources, we're voluntarily not extracting them.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Does anyone have the screencap of the schizo that was saying there isn't enough oil left on earth to field an armored division?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Economics =/= capability.
    If the world went to war, debt wouldn't matter, economies wouldn't matter, people start working or they start dying. All debts are temporarily on hold, we are at war, unless the debt helps us in which case it depends. All the country is now working for the state for a common goal, this includes the companies within it, who WILL refrain from gouging wealth and trade barter fairly or face non existence. Exceptions are made for necessary things and peoples needs of course. What matters at that point is how effectively you can mobilise your people to fight or produce, be it promises of wealth or a future they all ultimately work for the country and will do so for free if their basic needs are met and the need is great then you can turn them from making nicknacks for kids, or chairs for the rich, into making bombs.
    Ultimately what does matter is how much high tech capable shit you can push out the door, and high tech manufacturing economies are some of the likeliest to push out cost effective weapons, because microchips (copper, gold, etc), oil and steel/carbon fiber are basically what you need to win wars in the future, and the production lines to make them, be they robot or human.
    AI and robotics are reducing the need for high numbers of people for most work, and yes, humans may very well become borderline obsolete when it comes to manufacturing and designing generic weapons at some point in the future, merely resigned to maintainance, time will tell.

    Basically, you are dumb OP. Debt only matters when your economy matters. In total war or times of crisis, common trade does not.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP’s understanding of current-day arms production. In reality it’s a joke compared to generations past. For example, France produced 300 MILLION shells during ww1. Now it produces 144,000 over the same period — or LESS THAN 0.05% than in ww1. That’s a pattern repeated more-or-less repeated over the world, massive deindustrialization. During the last 60-70 years there has been an enormous demobilization of defense industry worldwide. After ww2 there wasn’t supposed to be any great wars, just blowing up third-worlders in jungles and desert hellholes. But now thanks to Ukraine the world suddenly woke up to the need for supplying ww1 again, and that wasn’t supposed to happen. What was supposed to happen was that Russia would roll up Ukraine instantly in a Slavic version of the Gulf War. No one forecast that air power would be so completely locked down by AD, that tanks and IFVs couldn’t maneuver and would relegated to uselessly attrited assault guns, and no one thought Russia could just basically ignore the most aggressive sanctions in history. No one thought the U.S. would just soft-abandon Europe militarily. So now everyone is looking around, suddenly feeling very exposed, placing orders for things the industry no longer exists for. Ammo which seemed to be enough for a limited quick war turned out to be completely insufficient in Ukraine.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Two things.
      Those shells were far smaller.
      They used an absurd amount of their workforce to do so.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You considering it an absurd amount is the real anomaly. Having to spend 50-60% of your gdp on defence is normal for human history.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You do that in a world heavily dependent on technological advancement you fall behind compared to your peers, lose the capability to trade anything of value, and become poor because half your population made nothing but shells for their lives.
          Wasting peoples lives on things other than manufacturing shells is a perfectly fine thing to hope for in a world that isn't at war.
          You act like all those housewomen back then during the world wars making shells somehow needed prior experience to make shells and thus it would somehow be impossible for us now, kek.
          You are not smart.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >spending 2% of your gdp on the military is good because of scientists who make up an even smaller segment of society
            >just a bunch of projection on shit I never said
            Yeah, you're a buffoon. The current world state comes from decades of extended peace, which pretty much everyone on earth understands except you.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The world state comes from the capability to inflict massive damage with very few people needed you ultraBlack person. Ie, nukes and the capability to project force.
              >2% if your population doing science is the only advancement in technology needed for an economy
              You are actually moronic.
              If you're an inefficient economy wasting your peoples lives away on shells/wars you don't need you either end up in trade deficit and unable to pay for things you need, or have to sell your peoples labor for scraps for decades instead because you're no longer cost efficient because you weren't investing money into efficiency, education, training, infrastructure that would otherwise have made you worth trading with.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I literally never said that. That's 2 posts where you invent something I didn't say and rail against it. Just shut the frick up jesus christ.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You get the FRICKING POINT though don't you you dumb little shit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Considering half the world is spending money on marketing, "doing anything of value" is very relative, at the moment we merely have something that is "stable" because most people are willing to play that game, not because of any considerations for sustainability or because it will avoid the occurrence of shitholes trying to amass wealth the ancient way.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You are also moronic.
              Stop getting your beliefs from /misc/.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >spending 2% of your gdp on the military is good because of scientists who make up an even smaller segment of society
            >just a bunch of projection on shit I never said
            Yeah, you're a buffoon. The current world state comes from decades of extended peace, which pretty much everyone on earth understands except you.

            Reality is, the West should have done a better job maintaining arms industries and stockpiles. Going forward, we'll have to work hard at regaining those capabilities... But maintaining absurd wartime levels of production at all times is idiotic.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Reality is, the West should have done a better job maintaining arms industries and stockpiles
              no shit
              everybody's desperately sweeping it under the carpet, but reality is that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a glaring indictment of European defence policy
              the "deterrent" didn't deter jack

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Their defence policy after the breakup of the USSR was that war on European soil was a thing of the past

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And it would have remained the case IF the US didn’t soft-abandon Europe’s defense. The only reason why Putin invaded in 2022 was that he was reasonable assured that the U.S. would let it pass. If there was a strong commitment by the U.S. to defend Europe he wouldn’t have tried invasion, simple as, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Europeans suddenly got shocked awake and realized "oh shit we’re actually alone here". They DESPERATELY want the US to end the war, we’re waiting for it in 2022 — but it didn’t materialize. That spooked the shit out of Poland especially and even Germany had to wake up. The NATO treaty looks very much like a worthless piece of paper now. Everyone now agrees there needs to be a serious European defense industry strategy to arm everyone ASAP.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >look you guys need to be able to defend yourselves
                >frick you stay out of our government, we don't need no steenking US
                >okay
                Russia invades
                >US hep me hep me
                >bro it's too late
                >frick you why won't you help me!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The US didn't soft abandon europe. If anything, certain european industries' influence on their governments is what caused the invasion.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                When I first heard this argument in the 90s, when I was actually a child, I thought it was fricking stupid. You had a lot of people agreeing with this and only mega moron econ degree holders and Liberal Party of Canada voters believed this. I don't think anyone really, truly, believed this... They just wanted to get rich quick off of the new political environment and shill this end of history bullshit as justification. The amount of money saved on providing future security allowed politicians to buy votes.

                In the nineties, gun control swept Western nations, the disarmament was at all levels of society and highly convenient for a renewed mercantilist society to flourish as overlords in some self gaslighting utopian vision that anyone with a grain of knowledge knew was doomed to failure. If you're a European, anticipate looser gun laws and more defense spending now that the rest of society is sobering up to the security crisis.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Soviet Union spend a third or more of its GDP on the military. Didn't work out so well for them.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do we really think THAT was the biggest problem with the soviet union? They were communist and filled with subhumans, there was constant murder and environmental devastation. Cities rose and fell on the whim of bureaucrats. Their military spending can't even crack top 50 on their list of issues.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Their military spending can't even crack top 50 on their list of issues.
              um
              I'd say a constant unnecessary drain of at least 15 cents per dollar year in year out is a pretty big issue

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wartime scale production of munitions during peacetime is fricking stupid, idiot. Literally no one does that.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      In 1915 hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen fearlessly threw themselves at the enemy artillery and machine guns without hesitation or regard for personal safety, not for any good or worthy reason except protecting their national honor.

      In 2015, Frenchmen screamed, cried and pissed themselves as they crawled away from the terrorists or were dragged out and mutilated, their eyes gouged and their testicles cut off. None fought back, all were praying for Americans to save them as they had on the Amsterdam-Paris train in August. None fought back or defended themselves despite being massively superior in number.

      Had the generation of 1915 been present, the attackers would not have gotten any further than the doorway before being bundled off and drowned by mobs in the Seine like Algerian protesters in 1961.

      The difference the 100 years makes, is that the French of 1915 were the inheritors of the tradition of Clovis, Napoleon, Danjou etc, and the French of 2015 are the inheritors of the tradition of Derrida, Sartre, Foucault, and de Beauvoir.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well they basically print money and trick people to work for it, meanwhile, it's worth nothing and becomes increasingly worthless every day until they default and start over.

    Pic very related.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >These economic crashes where the dollar goes up were great times for the economy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Boy, 1930-40 sure looks like it was a great time for the economy and the people under it.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kek there is no “shortage” of resources just greedy corporations and factions trying to keep a hold on the facade. The veil slips more everyday, that’s when you get global occurrences and draconian solutions. The world isn’t going mad or burning, it’s the inhabitants that have no true direction and are willingly being led to the slaughter. Stop thinking like tax pigs/cattle and it all becomes so clear.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Automation, robots, and AI will fill the gap you're seeing, and sooner than you think. It's already begun. Production will only increase and costs will decrease. Luddites will cry for the sudden decrease in inefficient drudgery to shackle themselves to, but the future will just run them over along with their paranoid doomsaying and their fetish for doing things the hard way, like usual.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Automation could be used to create an economy where production costs are so low that peoples needs could be met with almost no effort. However under our current economic system that is not how it would happen. Those with capital can control how these new resources are distributed and can use that power to keep the cost of living high. Forcing us to work just as hard as we do now to provide for ourselves, while also forcing us to compete for a diminishing pool jobs, and leaving the rest of us in poverty. The only leverage the average person has over those who own capital is the fact that they are still reliant on our labor to make anything. So the sooner they can get AI to automate everything, the sooner they can assert complete control over the rest of us. Hoarding all of the resources for themselves and forcing the rest of us into poverty.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If nobody has jobs who will buy the stuff they produce? Your theory is nonsensical.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          what im saying is that automation is going to make the value of labor worth so little that everyone is going to have to struggle to make enough money to buy anything even though the cost to produce it is basically nothing. People will still buy things, but they will also have to work way harder than they should have to to earn the money to do that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        what im saying is that automation is going to make the value of labor worth so little that everyone is going to have to struggle to make enough money to buy anything even though the cost to produce it is basically nothing. People will still buy things, but they will also have to work way harder than they should have to to earn the money to do that.

        >t. Karl Marx
        This argument has been made before
        Someone probably made the same argument when the horse collar and bladed plough was invented
        Some fricking caveman probably made the same argument when Grug invented the spear and Ugg was pissed that it made rock obsolete
        moronic argument then, moronic argument now

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's funny because pretending that nothing happens when millions of people lose their jobs is exactly why an idiot like Karl Marx found any pull among the poor.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's funny because, in the US at least, we'll probably see more concessions to workers with the way things are headed

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >lose all ecenomic leverage as an individual
      >become completely dependent on the state for handouts
      The average human will have less ecomic value than even a slave in ancient Rome. The middle and lower class will get completely fricked by this

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        t. late 18th century French noble

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Government indebts itself to itself resulting in the government paying itself interest payments on loans it took out against itself leading to a budget deficit resulting in less government expenditure on new and existing programs and infrastructure

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Generally, yes
      Which is why it's very useful to think of Government finance as a self-employed businessman who cannot take loans from anyone but himself

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Robots don't ask for wages.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well WW2 followed the Great Depression and they were even worried that another depression would follow in 1948 after WW2 spending ended.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dravidian-Caucasian hybrid heroes with unsurpassed pseudo Hal ability and intellect with prober teaching from Indian father and bountiful milk from Caucasian woman along with strong Hindu values exceeds and makes up for the rest of hummanity. The answer to your jypotjetic

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *