The US has a certain tax base in a given year, and then has to fit their spending into 140% of it or whatever. Simple as. Where medicine and education might help is tax base in a decade or two, but then again a tax cut or basic research grants might work even better. (Spending on weapons now definitely doesn’t help weapons later; that’s “guns vs. butter”)
Where it might help is still having a stable democracy to spend it, but then that’s not really macroeconomics anymore.
That’s what I’m referring to. A healthy, well-educated population is significantly more productive than an ill and stupid one. And more productive generally translates to more taxes in the long run.
Think of how strong of a military the US could’ve had if it were not controlled by companies looking for short term profits.
Not really though.
The US would have more money available for weapons if schools, healthcare etc. was properly founded. That’s basic macro economy.
Without defining that a bit more, basically no.
The US has a certain tax base in a given year, and then has to fit their spending into 140% of it or whatever. Simple as. Where medicine and education might help is tax base in a decade or two, but then again a tax cut or basic research grants might work even better. (Spending on weapons now definitely doesn’t help weapons later; that’s “guns vs. butter”)
Where it might help is still having a stable democracy to spend it, but then that’s not really macroeconomics anymore.
That’s what I’m referring to. A healthy, well-educated population is significantly more productive than an ill and stupid one. And more productive generally translates to more taxes in the long run.
Think of how strong of a military the US could’ve had if it were not controlled by companies looking for short term profits.