The End of the Peace Dividend
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 11. 2023
- Go to ground.news/patrickboyle to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link this month for 40% off unlimited access.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a wake-up call to all western governments. Alongside China’s rise, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and instability in Africa, the new era of global conflict has forced governments around the world to commit to more defense spending.
Will voters around the world accept the high price of military deterrence?
Patrick's Books:
Statistics For The Trading Floor: amzn.to/3eerLA0
Derivatives For The Trading Floor: amzn.to/3cjsyPF
Corporate Finance: amzn.to/3fn3rvC
Ways To Support The Channel
Patreon: / patrickboyleonfinance
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/patrickb...
Visit our website: www.onfinance.org
Follow Patrick on Twitter Here: / patrickeboyle
Patrick Boyle On Finance Podcast:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/7uhrWlD...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Google Podcasts: tinyurl.com/62862nve
Join this channel to support making this content:
/ @pboyle
Go to ground.news/patrickboyle to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link this month for 40% off unlimited access.
Tell me how Russia invaded Ukraine when they are all the escaping SS from German ww2. They were also Killing Peaceful Russians at the Dombass region so Putin actually Rescued Farmers from AZOV SS NAZI ... Do more real History and you may learn REALITY
They expected Russia to save them and he didn't. Keeping all agreements from WW2 with us all. And that is how Ukraine came to exist at all.. they had nowhere else to run ! 😂
Just so you understand to.. ISREAL 911'D THEMSELVES AND CREATED HAMAS 😮 - 🇦🇺 🍺 🐨
Patrick, do you offer a Funds Management Service. If possible I’d consider it a tremendous opportunity if you could operate as a funds manager. On the other, could you recommend a Funds Manager.
It's not just that, but a lot of the peace divident is based on the idea of high-tech weapons, less needed, but more expensive.
Well, it turns out those high-tech weapons were not so high-tech, that war of attrition is a thing, and the West does not have any weapon systems designed for ease mass manufacture, in the same way that Russia has.
Which means that there must also be a full paradim shift in weapons design and replacement, and less reliance on US manufacturing of such weapons, as they are infinitely more expensive than making your own (since you have to pay for them in dollars and you stimulate the US economy instead of your own).
South Korea had the right idea, so did Turkey.
“Just because something makes sense, doesn’t mean it’ll happen”
-Patrick Boyle
🤣🤣🤣
It's such an underrated line. "Sounds right" is probably the most common logical fallacy - sounds about right, doesn't it?
Patrick Boyle is like a living John Kenneth Galbraith.. he can be highly technical and competent but also grounded and humanistic.
@@hieronymusbutts7349 It's not in itself, though, is it? Only if based on it sounding right you presume it must be. The act of stating it sounds right, if it does, is just subjective reality.
More of a flawed heuristic. And I guess at least people are putting the info through a single filter, albeit shit lol. Like a seemingly large percent of people don't even apply the basic.."does that sound right?", or at least appear not to.
@@OhAwe that comment was a hell of a challenge but I think I finally appreciate your distinction. Thanks.
“The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed.” ― Carl von Clausewitz, On War
Yup
Yeah but Clausewitz was already obsolete when he finished his book. With the American war of secession, it became apparent that wars are just industrial meat grinders.
@@thygrrr Finished the book? Did he ever finish?
@@thygrrr'Already obsolete' He is foundation reading in every war college across the world. His writings are more relevant now than ever before.
"war college"???
The biggest flaw was assuming all governments will act in the interests of their people.
All govts are acting in interest of their people. The people themselves want wars.
Also relying on rational leaders. Completely ignoring fundamental and delusional religion leaders
Yea, the US has just constantly increased its spending on military while the infrastructure deteriorate and people go hungry and homeless even their veterans, some of them can't even get proper healthcare 😢 but you know richest country in the world.
@@shyone8386 last time i checked, millitary spending of US stayed the same over some period of time (just plug numbers into inflation calculator).
@@MasterBot98 2017 - 633 Billion
2021 - 800 billion
If you are talking % to GDP, well yes they have hovered right around the 3.5% which is, relatively speaking, high. It eats up a large part of the discretionary spending while the country runs a large deficit.
A friend of mine who held a pretty high civilian position at the pentagon once advised me that the uncertain nature of planning for multiple future scenarios mean that defense spending can never be "efficient". Not long ago the idea of stockpiling half a million of Howitzer shells would have seemed mad.
Too true.
Just half million? UA has burned through the 300k stockpile from Israel, not including other countries. I'm thinking 5 million shells as a minimum.
@@normangiven6436 I just made up a number. I any case, from my naive perspective it doesn't seem that US procurement had a long drawn out slugfest in mind. A retired USCG LCDR I knew was very annoyed that helicopter service was transitioning to Ikea style kits - in other words the selling point was that you would not train anyone in the field to understand how these aircraft worked (in much detail) and all in depth repair required paying the manufacturer tech to handle diagnostics etc. This would not seem to be an attractive option in a scenario like Ukraine.
The same is true of national security in general, not just defense spending. It might be more efficient to only produce as much food as you need, but it's better to throw away food when things are going well than to starve due to a bad harvest.
Tried that on the LCS class. Horribly expensive and is in part what is dooming them, is that staggering sunk cost of those ships.@@catsupchutney
The problem with neat theories on why war is a real waste is that it doesn't matter. Political systems don't pursue certain ends rationally rather they respond to political incentives.
in the u.s. plutocratic incentives
At some point the stakes are so high backing down is no longer an option no matter the cost.
For example when Czechoslovakia gave up their strategically important Sudentenland region to thr germans right before ww2. That basically cost them the country a year later.
Yes. It’s more like a prisoner’s dilemma type of game theory.
Political interest is meaningless in the US, its the special interest that matters.
"The problem with neat theories on why war is a real waste is that it doesn't matter."
I think saying that they don't matter is an exaggeration. *Some* politicians do care about not incurring the cost of war, just not all of them. The world *has* been a lot more peaceful after the World Wars than before them; just not completely devoid of war.
As an American the notion that we were supposed to benefit from increased social spending over the last thirty years sounds like some kind of bizarre alternate reality where good things happen.
It shows you how far they have shifted
Yeah…we were subsidizing the rest of the world and doing a shitty job managing the allies more or less. Costs should’ve been imposed for failures to meet defense targets in the form of tarriffs or other penalties….they never were m…for decades. So the bitching became just that.
Social spending in the USA seems to go against its ethos of unbridled capitalism and gets targeted by republicans as a socialist movement. Not surprising that the peace dividend was pocketed by your wealthy.
Increased healthcare and education spending did happen, it is the benefitting part that is lagging behind.
At least you have the best equipment
One topic that should also be raised is that the defense industry competes for the same raw materials (copper, nickel, cobalt, palladium...) as electrification and the green transition. All of these raw materials need to be mined, but no one wants a mine in their backyard. Additionally, most "good" deposits have been depleted (i.e. high grade, ore close to surface, access to infrastructure, etc.), and as a result, more waste rock needs to be mined and more energy is needed to process the same amount of end product, e.g. copper. To say there are some difficult choices ahead is a massive understatement.
It is why all these pledges of increased defense spending are hollow. Defense spending is heavy on commodity use. Raw material prices will inflate rapidly if everyone tries to increase defense spending. Only countries with cheap domestic sources of commodities will be able to pull this off without breaking the bank.
Ahemmm, some may have noticed a quiet but sudden shift in terms of military focus to the continent of Africa...
People change their minds quickly when bombs start to fall.
Don't you know that wind turbines just pop out of the ground like daisies?
@@Ned-bw5tt they look close enough to a daisy, so I should've guessed
14:15 "At times in the more distant past [Germany] have been quite big military spenders - but not recently." Almost spit my drink out
That aged like bad yoghurt
He was refering to the cold war when Germany spend over 3% of GDP on defence and had NATO's second largest military.. that was as late as 1990
@@alexanderrose1556 Sure, what else that could be when someone mentions Germany and military spending in one sentence. Only what you said is everyone's first thought, no doubt.
@@andreys7729 Ohh i am well aware it require a little bit of historical knowledge to know but 1990 wasnt that long ago and it was both the case Patrick Boyle was refering to and the last time Germany significantly committet to a large defence force.
@@alexanderrose1556 No, Patrick is known for making deadpan jokes, and he made a joke this time. Otherwise, you would be suggesting that Patrick is not intelligent enough to understand the ambiguity there.
"One of the flaws in economic thinking is to assume that people always make rational decisions", sublime. Chomsky already said it many years ago. Great and insightful video Patrick!
Yes Chomsky by accident will sometimes quote something someone else said that was useful. It shocks people due to his tendency to say something boneheaded.
@@ZontarDowa broken clock is right twice a day
Chomsky the loser who is all about Socialism and praising Soviet Union?
That Chomsky or some other wanker.
One of the flaws of economic thinking is assuming economy is the end goal when its just a mean to end. End goal is survival, your wealth doesn't matter if you're dead, your wealth also doesn't matter if you cant defend it (it will become someone's else wealth). Citizens are sheltered by governments who enforce law and order inside their borders, protect their wealth and life's, but there is no law and order between governments. You cant think like a citizen when you're in charge of nation. Russia was with USA and UK guarantor of Ukraine border integrity in return for nuclear disarming, how did it work out?
Did you know there was proposal of preemptive strike on nazi germany when nations noticed Hitler behavior and realised german army is growing? What? Us starting war? Irrational !
Except its not irrational to lose 50k soldiers or even 100k soldiers and spend 5-10% of your GDP on preemptive war instead of waiting for enemy to grow stronger and then lose multiple 100k's soldiers + millions of civilians (war inside own borders instead on enemy ground). And final costs of WWII basically ended europe as global player.
Economist are kinda funny species when you think of it. Typical citizen is already living in a government safety bubble insulated from harsh realities of the world while typical economist is in academic bubble that's nested in that bubble, double insulated from reality.
@@ZontarDow Chomsky is the prime example of looking at everything philosophically, but having completely lost the script of any pragmatic or realistic scenario. Anyone know what's up with all the psychologists/philosophers of today and their unending desire to lend expert opinions on stuff they aren't in any way qualified for or equipped to handle? From Chomsky to Peterson, we should really, REALLY stop taking advice from them on matters of geopolitics and social/cultural structures.
I cannot speak about any other nation, but the reasons why British workers, mostly public sector, have been going on strike, is because they have endured either stagnant or negative wage increases since 2008. There is also cynicism over increasing the defence budget, since British armed forces have been at constant war for the past thirty years (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria) to little good effect.
(workers) have endured either stagnant or negative wage increases since 2008
.... 1970s for the USA!
A lot of low-intensity expeditionary wars with an entirely different need than the Cold War territorial defence. The sort of army that consists of building blocks which can rotate in Somalia and fight a low-intensity conflict is not the same army to fight massive mechanized warfare in Europe.
France is one of the most militarily active european nations in their old dominions. French troops show up regularly on the continent.
It also the liberal, social media, millenial influence making people want something for nothing and thinking they should be entitled to whatever they want. And Unions continually ruining the country for their own ends.
This is one of the dangers of "post industrializing" a countries economy. We saw this with the pandemic where you can't outsource your manufacturing overseas and expect to maintain stockpiles at home.
"Rational Leader"........I am 70 this year and I have never witnessed this rare animal.
The stupid thing is that healthcare and housing have no reason to be this expensive. Regulations, deals, and debts have created extremely over priced healthcare and housing markets, which will inevitably lead to a collapse of four staple services in developed nations: healthcare, housing, insurance, and banking.
It has gotten so bad that the American people literally work only to cover the cost of health insurance, and car insurance while they slowly die in the car they live in parked under the overpass.
I am talking about small business owners in America, and employees at those businesses. Who in their right mind is going to keep working under those condition?
As some retired general said at the time: the 'peace dividend' was [expletive deleted] peace.
ha
Okay
As a Greek i can tell that we never had the time to enjoy any of this peace dividend.
Not to decreased defence budget spending that is.
except the us is the only reason europe can have the fancy social programs they talk about. lets see how those benefits go when usa leaves and russia marches forward
You had a peace dividend like other NATO states, Greece went from 5ish % spending on the military to 2.5% (whereas other European states dropped way below 2%). It's just that you ramped up spending on social welfare to unsustainable levels, to the point the Greek state was taking on extensive debt just to keep the programs running.
My country is too deep in shit right nao that i cant even enjoy the fact that Germany cant really pricedump their products by buying cheap natural gas in mass from Russia. I cant even tax my shipowners that are moving LNG from US or Qatar or wherever they get it from to fix my crippling economy or to pay my people enough to not to see them go to other Schengen area countries like Germany.
Greetings from the Florida of Europe (sort of).
that's turkey's fault though, otherwise Greece might have been able to divert income to other things
But Greece has not been forced to fund a war time economy where everything is sacrificed in decades so Greece has benefited.
Greece spends more than most NATO or EU countries but Greece also maintains conscription when most countries long ago dropped this
The dark reality is, war is inevitable. It is an inherent aspect of the human condition that will exist as long as we do, and no economic, political, or social system can ever truly end it. As long as the option for violence exists, it will be used to triumph over opponents. Once people understand that, the world makes a lot more sense. War never goes away, it just recedes every so often.
We could guarantee an end to war if something benevolent ruled over us all, like some futurist ai or something. It's probably necessary for some external authority to impose peace on us by force though.
That was a superb presentation. Seriously, they should be showing this in all colleges and universities, regardless of the subjects people study. Just so the youth of the world understand the planet they are inheriting and can come up with ways to make it a better one.
❤
Yes, but sadly the ‘youth of the world’ are obsessed with meme stocks, gaming culture, social media influence, and finding interesting ways to grift off generative AI technology. Or at least the youth in this part of the world. 😢
@@lesleyjohnson8488 : It’s forgivable for thinking that, especially if you watch a lot of CZcams and follow what its algorithm shoves in front of you. But the evidence is that people are more interested in fixing the world’s problems than you may think. On the news, yesterday, I watched hundreds of thousands of people in Britain, from a wide range of backgrounds, march together for peace in Palestine, calling for a ceasefire. They did so, despite countless lies being told about them in the media and direct threats from the far right. They did so, despite the egregious mischaracterisation of their intentions, route and motives by Britain’s actual HOME SECRETARY, who actually INCITED VIOLENCE through dog whistles and downright lies! These were brave, motivated and young people, for the most part, who knew they were taking a risk with their own futures, as well as the possibility of direct violence on the day, merely by showing up and calling for peace! They do not fit your description.
Ironically, there were several acts of violence committed on that day, but none of them occurred on the peace march. They actually happened a mile and a half away, around the cordoned off Cenotaph. And they were ALL committed by far right extremists, answering Suella Braverman’s dog whistles. They broke the police lines, knocked the cameras out of news teams hands, issued death threats and several were arrested for actual acts of violence. All whilst being too thick to realise that their target was a mile and a half away, because they believed the Home Secretary’s deliberate lie and thought they would all be at the Cenotaph.
What we can learn from this is that people on both sides are highly active and motivated. And that the far right nut jobs are vastly outnumbered, as well as fail to grasp any form of reality, which is helpful to the reasonable human. The web is a distorted, fun house mirror, which only shows you what you feed it. “We see, as through a glass, darkly.”
@@lesleyjohnson8488That is literally the product of the older generations making apps and producing culture to suit their own profits.
@@lesleyjohnson8488 i'm part of the young gen Z in NA and I'm watching this video and invested in these topics, as are many other. it's a common sentiment for older generations to say this about those that follow them because a lack of understanding and communication between both parties. plus, your comment only highlights the importance of ashroskell's comment further for educating those among the youth that don't know about the world they're growing up in.
The problem is the industrial base was outsourced
The idea it would ever be needed again was thought false
Basically, somewhere in the 90's we made the same mistake everyone did in the 10's, it just took longer to find out we were wrong
Yep. Clinton(and GOP congress) caused '08 crash, and they practically wiped out the industrial base through NAFTA and the China deal.
Centuries from now, people will study the 1970-1920’s as the most stupid generations in human history.
Stupidity from both thinking would never happen again and in ignoring global warming
This isn't a problem. It provides massive economic growth which funds the massive military budget without significantly impact citizens daily lives. Besides we are seeing production move from China to other nations more friendly to the US
The motivation of US Military spending is not to win wars. It’s to raise profits and protect jobs in some Senator’s district. They want high tech weaponry that costs a fortune to design, produce, and maintain. America can outspend anyone on defense, but most of it goes to exec Lambos and Congressional coffers. While Russian and Chinese defense spending may seem lower, they’re not going to run out of ammo.
@@jonathan2847 and the companies in those countries are china owned in the same way that china owns u.s. professional sport teams.
1:19 "ended abruptly" seems to discount the increase in US defense expenditure, not to mention hostilities, for the Gulf War (1990-1991), and the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the US perspective at least, the peace dividend ended much sooner and with escalating involvement globally rather than abruptly.
American forces in combat:
1993: Somalia
1994: Haiti
1992-5: Bosnia
1998-9: Congo, Kosovo
2001-21: Afghanistan
2003-present: Gulf Wars
2011: Libya
2011-present: Syria
So much peace dividend!
@@emmy8526 How was the US involved with combat in the Second Congo War? Or are you just copying someone's list.
Gulf War was minor, and occurred during the end of the Cold War.
The Global War on Terror was not a conventional. Tons of funds and focus was diverted to counter-insurgency efforts. Gov might be spending more money, but not in anything that is important to the problem that we face today.
It wasn’t until after Obama’s second term that U.S. begin to return to preparing for a peer-to-peer conflict.
I mean, the actual amount of spending was still significantly less (at least as a percentage of GDP) compared with the Cold War, which is really what the “peace dividend” actually means. There were still plenty of conflicts post-Cold War, but all of them were much smaller in scale compared with the potential US-Soviet slugfest that everyone was prepping for pre-1991. Afghanistan might have dragged on forever, but the actual scale of the fighting was much smaller than even, say, Vietnam (as the NVA was actually at least a semi-conventional military that was capable of using SAMs and fighter planes through the entirety of the war).
It was never a thing
This is by far one of the most interesting channels on the CZcams machine
Nothing new under the sun: "si vis pacem, para bellum". Paradoxically those who long for lower military spending and eventually those the most responsible for massive military spending later
The economic argument against war makes sense, as long as you don’t have a period of economic chaos.
All people should realize that once conventional weapons run out - non-conventional weapons are the only ones left to use!!!
As always arguments carefully put together, presented with a grain of Irish irony, please keep up
"The war in Ukraine has mostly been a war of warehouses"... my, my, my, thats a dry way of putting it... I had to pat my heart. touche.
I mean there's all the death and destruction too, but that's not what the war is about
Patrick your videos are incredible. Thank you for helping me understand the economic and fiscal world!
To be fair to Germany it would be pretty difficult for them to match the sort of defence spending they had in the not so distant past.
i am sure there are huge amounts of inefficiencies, that would free up 100 billion in no time, and that is before you would take on any debt.
I dont think we even need that spending. There is no opponent like the Soviet Union anymore. Russias performance in Ukraine has shown that it would get erradicated by a conflict with conventional weapons against NATO. Even by "underfunded" militaries.
Problem is more about fixing problems of the past, and understanding what we really need for modern militaries. Thats what really explodes costs, otherwise 2% spending would be massive overkill.
But thats not just true for Germany, but almost any country. Even the UK, who had retained much more capabilities, had a ton of bleed off in their army and air force capabilities.
The problem is that 2% of GDP is a moving target. Germany has a pretty good run, economically, in the last 15 years, especially compared to other countries, so their GDP soared.
It is, in fact, now estimated that Germany will be hitting the 2% target in 2024, partly because in 2023 GDP went quite sideways..
Also Germany was limited to a military of maximum 370,000 troops by the 2+4 treaty - which is currently not a problem but let to massive reductions in size after 1990.
@@termitreter6545 It is indeed often forgotten, that the combined militaries of the European NATO states outnumber Russia's significantly. A Russia that got stuck in Ukraine.
@@catriona_drummond what is also often forgotten, is that most people in Europe would rather surrender than fight a war. Surveys show that only populations of Poland and Baltic states are willing to defend their countries. And that is why Russia would win in a conventional war against NATO and that is why it got stuck in Ukraine - because in Ukraine people are willing to fight.
Peace is an anomaly, like good weather.
The base status is war.
I think that's what Putin tries to tell his people. The war is normal, you little peons can't possibly change it. The state and its whims can't be changed, just endured.
Another good one Patrick. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it
Britain has been making strategic decisions for years to ensure their defense spending relative to GDP remain high, mostly by leaving the EU and tanking their GDP
Despite the many, many faults of the British establishment they've had the foresight to keep spending on the items necessary for defending an island nation. Nuclear deterrents and the submarine fleet. Although their current approach to conventional ground forces is questionable to say the least.
@@ThyCorylus The UK was the odd one out for a long while, who didn't use a mass conscript army until the Great War.
I view the purchase of Lockheed-Martin shares as something akin to buying gold, it's essentially a bet on global instability.
Except, US military spending never declines during peacetime. Only priorities in the military budget change
Lockheed Martin builds a lot more than military equipment. Also gold isn’t a hedge against instability.
@@PinkFZeppelin If only they were as diverse as Mitsubishi. If I had the money, I would buy a Lockheed-Martin car.
Lockheed & Raytheon have been stagnsnt / already priced in for the past 15yrs or really since the en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine was writ and accepted. It's all those obscure little subcontractor companies that just the gov't insiders know are about to get a FAT gov't contract, that are multiplying in price.
@@pll3827I'm still pissed off they're only selling their rainbow socks only to LockMart employees...
I’m late to your channel but enjoy your rational presentation on the topics without hyperbole. Also, I like the dry humor you bring. I appreciate you showing the articles you are discussing. Please include links to the articles in the comments or the “more” to streamline finding those articles for further reading. Thanks.
Fascinating as always. Would you ever consider talking about the Swiss banking system, their opaque nature , how they protect dictators dough -- Mobutu , Duvalier, : and why there does not seem to be an ICC set up to take them to task. Political yes , morally corrupt yes. Worthy of a good Roger Casement type dissection.
You should not compare military expenditures in absolute dollars. You should always adjust for PPP. If you do this, you'll conclude that China is currently outspending the US.
"Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a wake-up call to all western governments" - which is very (post-factum) surprising considering how much effort was made to make it happen. I mean nato expansion up to russian west borders.
By “NATO expansion” you mean countries willing to join for some reason? May we take a moment to try to guess what the reason could be?
@@naturalnonsense make your clear point first. by "nato expansion" I literally mean nato expansion.
Thanks!
Thank you!
According to the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition:
34. War is good for business.
35. Peace is good for business.
There r business opportunities everywhere :D!
Amazing video as always Patrick!
Fantastic research and presentation as always!
Bravo Patrick, I am pleasantly surprised with this video, it was very good, well thought out and expertly presented as usual, as it is a smidge out of your normal scope, I again say Bravo! And Thank You! I look forward to every PB video and this one, to me, really stands out!
When you look at contractor 'mark ups', I think the US may be spending 900 Billion, but getting closer to 100 Billions' worth of merchandise, if so much.
One of the most insightful video of the year. Thanks for your elaborate flow of information with a time-based approach.
Very appropriate and timely - thanks!
There hasn’t really been a peace dividend in the US since the 90s. In fact, the government is spending like drunken sailors since there is no accountability. Elected officials rule like kings. 😢
This is a good thing, maybe now we'll learn that outsourcing industry leaves nations vulnerable.
Vulnerable to what? Lower prices? US spending has increased so much due to buy america requirements.
@@patrickbateman1660It must be nice to live in a country so powerful that war is a foreign concept
@@dioniscaraus6124 American infrastructure now costs 60% more due to the requirements.
@@dioniscaraus6124 There are allies of the US though, and many just neutral to the US. Trade makes countries close too.
Brilliant video as always Patrick!
Excellent video Patrick, I have come to admire and appreciate your first class content and presentation.
The US alone has spent over $10T on just the few recent wars. That's some peace dividend. If "only" 30% of that is the profit margin, that's a cool $3T for "the right folks". Preaching peace to them is like preaching the virtues of veganism to your cat while holding a big piece of sushi grade tuna half an inch from its nose.
Spot. Effing. On
@@weird-guy neither Iraq nor Afghanistan nor Syria nor Libya nor Yemen, not even Russia pre-2019 had any intention to theraten the global power & reserve currency status. Nothing undermined the USD's and Western financial infrastructure status more than them being weaponized against Russia. No 3rd country would want to subject its finances to another nation's whims. I say "whims" because one may find 9K civilians killed in Ukraine in almost 2yrs since the beginning of Russia's invasion abhorrent & sanction-worthy, but not while at the same time finding the same number of civilians killed by Israel in just over 2 weeks (not years) "not great, not terrible" and 200K civilians killed in Iraq alone not worthy of a mention. The point isn't that these whitewash Russia - the point is re "whims" / arbitrary approach as to who gets sanctioned under what conditions.
Excellent as always. Have you thought about doing a video on the 1998 ruble crisis?
Excellent video. Thank you.
Frank Ledwidge has also been writing on this topic. Primarily he is known for Losing Small Wars, an indictment of the British Army's operational shortcomings. One of the issues is the bureaucracy now smothering the military, which will absorb a large proportion of any increased spending. The British Army has more generals than operational tanks.
And those that do leave get sucked into the arms businesses.
"No rational leader would start a war."
Yup, shows "everyone" leaders are irrational, he nailed it
Dictatorships are inherently unpredictable.
I disagree. War is sometimes the rational and easy decision, as cruel as that sounds. Consider the US invasion of Grenada or the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Most go into war hoping for short, sharp, status boosting conflicts.
The problem is when that doesn't happen.
@@dunnowy123 You mentioned 2 of the most warmonger nations in the world, US cant even be 5 years out of a war😅
@@RandomStuffPT I mean, those are examples I'm more aware of. There are countless conflicts around the world where the internal dynamics pointed towards war being the "rational" choice at the time
@@RandomStuffPT Also yes, but there's a reason for that. You can't be a superpower without getting your hands dirty
Excellent video, as usual.
Excellent content. Brilliant delivery.
You should've collabed with @Perun on this one: the economics of war is pretty much his thing.
If Patrick Boyle and Perun did a collaboration, that would be the economist's version of Good Omens
@@hieronymusbutts7349 How? Who's Crowley and who's Aziraphale?
@@Desmaad erm, are you asking me to name characters in a book that hasn't been conceived of yet? I appreciate the faith in my abilities, but I haven't mastered precognition quite yet.
@@hieronymusbutts7349 No problem with guessing, methinks. That said, both are pretty snarky, so it's more like two Crowleys.
@@Desmaad well, they'd be Pratchett and Gaiman in my analogy. ;)
18:22 I can't believe Patrick said that with straight face
Very good, once again. Thanks!
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
“The rest of the budget goes to haircuts and food for Kim Jong Un”. Awesome.
An economic theory out of the 80s that turned out to be complete bull?
Imagine my shock.
Very good! Thanks.
The times were short, but nice.
18:35 Irish humour 😂😂
I suspect the best way to spend for defence is in defence R&D on dual use technologies. I.e. medicine (where break throughs like blood fusions help in peace), energy (Renewables) to charge vehicles in remote locations so cutting oil supplies is not as important (helps mobile vehicles), languages, engineering, doctors
Ok, try sending your army of doctors and solar panels up against an army of tanks and artillery and watch what happens.
@@Xezlec Obviously, you need foot soldiers, weapons and all- but all armies do march on their stomachs. And finding the best ways to support the army would likely bring more useful dual use devices. I worry most of it will end up into bleeding edge but impossible to build in bulk weapons though. US military has had more than a few of them over the years.
Dual-use technologies are a good idea, but you'd also have to ban the export of those technologies to potential rivals. There's no military advantage to being able to build an electric Humvee if China gets to build them too.
@@Xezlec An army without the civilian healthcare system behind them would rapidly crumble today. NATO troops in Iraq could always trust that a surgical center in Germany could sort them out. A lot of what the army does depends on civilian infrastructure. The army does not usually build its own railroads, run its own merchant marine and grow its own food.
I just received a survey from my local council asking me which public services I would prefer them to cut next year. The trickle down isn’t far away.
I enjoy your videos very much. Dry information delivered with a snap of sarcasm.
Lower risk premiums during peace times have a lot of value.
I often find these absolute numbers (x billions more needed for defence) a bit misleading: I just looked at total government spending as a percentage of GDP in OECD countries. It ranges from around 25% (Ireland) to 60% (France) with most countries, including the US and Germany, falling into the range of 40-50%. This means that, for example, to increase defence spending from 1 to 2 % of GDP, Germany needs to cut other government spending by a mere 2%.
The problem is where you take that 1-2% from
Every western country or developed nation has an ageing population so in the UK half of all social security spending is on pensions
The increase in the average age and the fact that people are living longer means that many pensioner can live as much as 25 years after they retire.
essentially we have the young subsidising the poor. So part of the problem is that however you slice it the problem is with lower growth potential more pressures on the socila care, social security housing etc that finding 1-2% is actually very hard. Simply put when you have already cut to the bone there is not much fat you can find to trim and here in lies the probles for most western countries. Either you make people work for longer (which is what they are doing ), you reduce the payments for other social services (again in the UK this is happening or happened) or you cut defence spending which in truth at best for many is mere 2-3% of GDP anyway.
So it is like asking someone who is on minimum wage in a cost of living crisis to say go without breakfast or lunch everyday bcause that would be about 2% of spending in an equivalent poor household and I suspect that the household will not be a great place......
I think with a lot of economists have lost sight of is that economic success, stability, and prosperity are often a means to an end. Unlike what most modernist materialists take for granted, humans desire more than that. Humans need to look to something bigger. Without God, it’s land, uniting ethnicity, legacy, ultimate security, etc.
Let's be real, 2% was setup as the bare minimum, and the U.S is been one of like 11 to actually meet that quota? a 2% minimum should not be a crippling debt issue for a civilized nation.
The U.S needs to chill with their foreign spending... We have people who are drowning in inflation here, and we're printing more trying to fund two wars alone? I can understand giving old equipment, or stocks that needed to be used anyways, but we need to knock it off trying to pay everybody's wars.
Apparently we didn't need any gear we left in the Middle East... Too bad it couldn't be sold to a few other allied nations in the area...
I imagine countries that increase defence budget are not necessarily expecting conflicts but probably starting discounting US ability and willingness to umbrella them, or they figured out it's better off to not rely on other big western power too much.
Considering how Trump and many Republicans idolize Putin, it wouldn't be unwise to invest in one's own national security.
Exactly, and also as a way to support other countries when they are in need.
The application of the NATO principles: one for all and all for one. Each country is not standing on its own, they can support one another when necessary, therefore spliting the defense costs, because the war wouldn't come from the next door countries, but from a small group: Russia, US and China.
@@mikatuwell Turkey says:hold my drink...
NATO is a wolves nest, greece has been threatened with invasion from turkey since ever, turkey is at present an occupying force in Cyprus (another European state) and we are discussing "external threats"?
It's a joke.
Nato only defends the USA interests.
If you are lucky and these coincide with your country's interests, you might get help.
Otherwise, you will just lose.(territory at best,your life at worst).
The US spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare. Canada, which has similar people and similar health outcomes, spends about 11%. The difference, 6% of GDP, is nearly twice what the US spends on its entire military. That's a potential "peace dividend" that will never be permitted in the US, however, because 6% of GDP wasted by virtue of treating healthcare as if it were a private service rather than a public good, buys a tremendous amount of lobbying.
Precisely.
I don't think the problem is that political leaders act irrationally, but that they are rationally reacting to pressures that run counter to the best interest of the nation.
A lot of "irrational" wars make more sense if you look at what the leaders need to do to appease the domestic political body that supports them. This is talked about at length in The Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Buend and Alastair Smith.
Wonderful as usual.
Great video, I won't sleep tonight
The peace dividend in the U.S. ended almost immediately with the gulf war and the war on terror. I can’t believe you didn’t mention these.
Imo this video applies much more to Europe - US spending stayed high.
I think the point is that even with those events the spending to gdp ratio was lower than in the cold war
Should be noted that war is rational. It's just that people who say that it isn't have different goal in mind(maximizing pleasure instead of becoming the dominant power and spreading own influense and gеnеs)
Hitler said tge same
idk you can be both anti war and anti hedonism
@@scoliosis9478 good one🤣
@@jimmcneal5292 lol tell me brother why is that not true?
@@scoliosis9478 well, a lot of people may not want to go to war, and having a policy of "only whoever wants to fight fights doesn't work
Very informative video. Thank you very much patrick.
The least productive and helpful public spending needs to go. I have seen way too much spent and wasted with it results. Those first. That means some people will be angry about their pet projects going. As Frank Sinatra said “that’s life.”
Great Video - I'm Canadian and our Prime minister - Trudeau had the gall to tell NATO flat out that it had absolutely not intention of trying to come anywhere near NATO requirements. I would have slapped him silly for saying such crap and make Canada the laughing stock of NATO.
Si vis pacem, parabellum.
It's almost like trade-offs exist when you socialize healthcare and retirement. It seems less flexible to adjust to immediate needs and danger.
War is expensive. I recently visited an army museum. The iron from one troop carrier, can make thousands of fork and spoon.
Great video! I've always been curious about the "accuracy" of using military budgets as a proxy for military strength. Sure, the US spends the most by far, but how effective is that really if our high spending is the result of exorbitant costs from military suppliers? We could have 100 planes for $10 million or *1* plane for $1 billion.
It is the evolutionary Technologic ratchet. Also known as the Red Queen's Race.
100 cheap planes might sound nice, but a completely moot point if the $10 billion plane already landed a thermonuclear first strike on your Capital.
Remember, neither the Jungle, nor Human Warfare have ANY referees.
It is not a very good approximation. America famously overpays its military contractors, and military gross spending says nothing about purchasing power parity. After all, soldier salaries and expenses are part of the equation. China for example is certainly paying its rank and file less than America (not to imply America pays their soldiers well). The US Navy now has ships rusting away on deployments and recent reports about squalid mold infested barracks across the country. Insult to injury, we live in era of asymmetric warfare where $1,400 consumer drones are taking out tanks and a single hypersonic missile can potentially wipe out a multi billion dollar aircraft carrier. Simply being the guy throwing more money at a problem does not equal strength. America struggled to invade and contain flip flop wearing insurgents, but has not faced a near peer or peer level foe since arguably the Korean War when China got involved. It is quite possible for modern America to get the everloving snot spanked out of it in any conflict not against a nation it already beat before (Iraq), a barely working anarcho-theocracy (Afghanistan) or a South American micro-state, and to pay quadruple the cost for the privilege.
When you see those numbers, it's like the cops talking about the worth of the drugs they captured, they're taking it at cut street value. Ditto with US support, most of the munitions they sent to Ukraine were stock pile munitions which were costing them to store, but the cost mentioned is always the retail value. It makes them sound so much more support than they are.
For the Gaza issue, besides all the death and destruction, was a minister of the government, Amichai Eliyahu, suggesting they should nuke Gaza, and thereby admitting for the first time in Israeli history that Israel has nuclear weapons. Previously the Israeli government has neither confirmed nor denied. They've certainly never signed any of the nuclear treaties.
In the world of Aerospace engineering and air combat having the technological edge is a huge advantage. One cutting edge fifth-generation fighter like the F-22 equiped with Superior stealth technology that essentially makes it invisible from radar and advanced radar that can detect enemy aircraft far out from hundreads of kilometers can easily take out hundreads of fourth generation fighters like Su-27 who are not equiped with the latest technology or have any stealth. The US spends so much money on Research and Development as well as procurement to maintain the huge technological advantage they have and by extension US hegemony over the world. If the US were to let go of its technological advantage and stopped investing so heavily on the newest toys the gap would be filled by the US rivals such as China or Russia and left unchecked by US military strength could potentially become the new superpower to replace the US.
Despite the eye watering exorbitant cost of the military budget it is well worth it otherwise we would all be having to learn Chinese or Russian as a second language.
I would still rank the USA as having the edge, however, when you adjust for cost of living in the country, China has a far larger budget then the USA. After all a good engineer in the USA gets paid 100k USD. The same engineer in China is probably only paid 20k.
In Canada we're actually *cutting* our already pathetic defence spending because we've spent all our money on real estate, black shoepolish, and pretty costumes for our PM, but we really appreciate all you real countries continuing to carry our water for us...
"black shoepolish, and pretty costumes for our PM"
aren't these the same thing?
It's fine, if you could just take 3 million refugees from middle eastern wars from Germany and settle them in Manitoba or where else it#s convenient, we could have a breather here and divert that money into the new Rheinmetall Panther tanks.
@@catriona_drummondyou could stop supporting the wars by the US that bring those refugees but your country is an eternal vassal of the US with no mind of yours. Much of your defence expenditure goes to buy US weapons instead of making yours like France. Your politicians are US cuckolds.
Hi Patrick ,haven’t told you I love ya in a few days so here… I love you!
@2:43, i was born in the early eighties and so ive been hearing this idea my entire life. Two things i have come to realize, 1) yes the idea is mostly correct that interconnected countries will not fight major wars. 2) No one ever mentions the possibility of "uncoupling" two countries economies. That second point is VERY important as we are seeing it happen now.
If that theory was true then civil wars would never happen. Whatever economic coupling exists between two countries its dwarfed by the coupling that exists inside a country. 'Experts' never adequately explained why if their theory is correct do civil wars still happen. Where you add political and social coupling as well. How do they explain civil wars then? Answer they can't. Because they never thought of this obvious question.
Good chunk of our defense spending goes to military industrial complex profits, lobbyists, and politicians...
It also goes to technological developments like jet engines, GPS, and the internet.
@@badluck5647tell em something the military invented in the last 25 years that everyone uses
@@badluck5647Most of those advances came from the space program but demoralized fools are more willing to throw billions in Endless Sand Wars © rather than spend in the search for the stars
Finland has always had a conscription and larger military spending, while at the same time being dubbed the "Happiest Country on Earth" 6th time in a row. You can definitely strike a balance between military budgets and general well-being of society. Conscription is a fairly cost-effective way of having a robust military although undoubtedly bringing back draft would be a very unpopular decision to make in countries that abolished it.
Yeah, as an American, if I got drafted I'd be pretty strongly considering shooting myself in the foot. My grandfather dodged the draft during the Vietnam war, but that was before we had so much surveillance.
I'll go to jail over fighting for corrupt bastards in suits@@henryfleischer404
Yeah, that will go over well in the U.S. Hint - the Vietnam-era anti-war movement’s demise (perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not) effectively ended in 1973, when the draft was ended. I want to see the draft reinstated as well, but nit for the reasons you state. I see it as the one thing that could reignite a serious anti-war movement in the U.S. and render post-1990s adventurism politically difficult, if not unsustainable. Maybe we’ll get the draft that we want and see who is happy with the outcome.
@@henryfleischer404 as an American, you’d be a fool to go
P.S. I missed the part, post-Winter War, where Finland actually deployed troops or engaged and adversary? , undeployed troops are 84.9% happier, and among the happiest troops in the world.
Your work is impeccable. You are a Master.
Wonderful to be raising young children in this time of increasing 💩 and the end of the "peace dividend".
Somehow, you miraculously manage to appeal to both conservatives and progressives without enraging either side. I can't tell you how intensely I need to learn this skill!
Can you explain more how he appeals to both?
Yes. He clearly understands how to be sympathetic to progressives and progressive issues like green technology, suspicion of corporate greed and other shenanigans, and a need for respect/open-mindedness to different cultures, races, and religions. At the same time, he clearly values free markets and smaller government. He is suspicious, or seems to be, of political incentives crippling the free transfer of goods and services around the world.
@@MrNicoJac No, I can't explain it at all. I want to understand!
@@lesleyjohnson8488But I've seen other people try to take that same position and get absolutely destroyed for it. In fact, it seems like it's the people who try the hardest to be gentle and reach out olive branches that get stomped down the hardest.
For Peace dividend to exist a couple of things must be present.
1) A BENEFIT with intrinsic value
2) mutual agreement that a BENEFIT actual has the intrinsic value claimed.
Over the past 10 years the amount of BENEFIT to be divided was materially reduced to make sense to pursue peacefully. As well as, the mutual agreement on what that BENEFIT is was largely polarized over the past 5 years.
Interesting points. What would you say was the benefit to Russia that they held off invading Ukraine until 2014/2022? Why do you think the value of that benefit was reduced in the eyes of Putin before 2022?
Putin had to defend himself since USA kept encroaching on Ukraine despite their promise not to. This is a soup of dishonorable and dishonest foreign policy by the US, expansionism and ego by russia
@@GoblinUrNuts ok, but you didn't answer my question. What benefit to Russia was there to peace that existed before 2014 that no longer existed in 2022?
Thanks for your videos m8
At long bloody last. The damage of the blasted thing has been enormous.
So a big question is... are we going to shoulder it on the lower, low-mid, and ever shrinking middle class? Or are we going to return to even near pre-Reagan economics and shoulder it n the corps that have had their profits and CEO compensation explode exponentially since then.
America reckless imperial ambitions will mean the working class will pay for all of it
@@patrickbateman1660desperate russian bot attempt, get lost.
@@agentorange9867 yeh your a Russian agent if you think america Iswar hungry. You people would have LOVED gerorge bush.
@@agentorange9867 I mean the working class will shoulder the costs though. Rich people make policy in this country why would they pay for it?
14:53 you're missing a key component of defense spending imho - to prevent recession, on a technicality temporarily even, defense spending repurposes declining mechanical manufacturing spending. Defense is very stimulative, and that's a huge reason countries are rearming too. Russia, Hamas and China are good ways to justify it to a public but that doesn't make it the root cause.
Yes it so benificial to produce guns and tanks, just think of all the other benefits they bring! R&D is very stimulating, and you know what is even more stimulating then R&D into guns with a side benefit every now and again? Spending all your R&D into actualy usefull things!
I am not saying we don't need defence spending, I wanted an increase in 2014. But from a humanity point of vieuw, it is just burning money, and just because there are even better ways to burn money doesn't mean that it is usefull to burn money
The US made a bet that they could push Nato into eastern Europe including Ukraine and Russia wouldn’t dare to do anything about it. And if they did they assumed they’d be able to beat them.
But even in the worst case for the US, which is more or less the one that is playing out, they would still push Europe firmly into their grip and be able to sell their oil and gas there, while Russia gets depleted militarily and financially and loses any influence in Europe. So I don’t know if this was irrational for the US.
It was irrational for the US to ever antagonize Russia. They should have embraced it ever since 1992. In the future conflicts for resources, global power and influence, I wish that the free West had Russia and all of it's potentials on it's side instead Russia being with China or Iran.
The former russian/soviet satellites themselves are also pushing for membership as protection towards Russia. The more aggressive Russia becomes, the more firmly it pushes them into the EU and NATO. Finland and Sweden would never have become NATO nations without the war.
oh man if only Russia stopped aggressing, there'd be no need for NATO, go chug some vodka low IQ chimp
@@catriona_drummond It was irrational to ever work with Russia. Russia has never had a full decade as the friend of Europe.
Great video - super interesting