Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (218337)	12/11/2025 5:53:56 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218805

Re: losing jobs in order to free up labor to build armaments. What. Incredible. BS. Did you tell your AI tool to remember Econ 101 precept re: value of armament manufacturing versus manufacturing of traditional goods? Grok 4 reminds you: <<<<<<Economic Impact of Manufacturing Non-Military Goods Manufacturing non-military goods—such as consumer products, infrastructure, healthcare equipment, or green technologies—generally drives more inclusive and sustainable economic growth. This sector tends to have higher fiscal multipliers, often exceeding 1.0, as seen in studies of highway funding where each $1 million spent creates 8-12 jobs (roughly $83,000 to $125,000 per job) and boosts GDP by about the same amount. Investments in services or non-defense areas can yield even larger effects, with multipliers averaging 0.93 over four years in some models, stimulating private sector activity without the same level of crowding out. For example, spending on education, health, or climate technologies creates more jobs per dollar than military outlays, fostering long-term productivity through human capital development and innovation in civilian markets. This approach reduces inequality by distributing benefits more widely and supports environmental sustainability, unlike arms production, which often incurs hidden costs like pollution or resource depletion. Overall, non-military manufacturing promotes diversified economies less vulnerable to geopolitical shifts or budget cuts. Comparative Analysis The key difference lies in opportunity costs and efficiency. Military spending, which reached $1.676 trillion globally in 2015 (2.3% of world GDP), represents a massive diversion of resources; reallocating even a fraction could fund global priorities like education or healthcare. Studies show defense spending’s opportunity cost is higher than the expenditure itself, creating fewer jobs (e.g., homeland security spending yields lower employment multipliers) and potentially stifling growth in other sectors. In contrast, shifting to non-military goods enhances economic multipliers, reduces inequality, and builds resilience—e.g., non-defense allocations during policy shifts have shown inverse effects, where cutting military boosts civilian growth. While arms manufacturing thrives in conflict-driven environments, it normalizes a “permanent war economy” with diminishing returns; non-military focus aligns better with peaceful, innovation-led prosperity. >>>>> What garbage your AI tool spews.