Big Newsflash, suckers: military spending is NOT NOT NOT "good" for economy--just benefits "military-industrial-complex," builds police-state, fools

[Apollonian]

Is All This Military Spending Really Good for the Economy?​

by Michael Maharrey | Schiff Gold
November 6th 2023, 3:41 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/is-all-this-military-spending-really-good-for-the-economy/

People who make claims about the economic boom created by war are only considering the visible effects of military spending. They are ignoring all of the economic activity that never happens because the government is manufacturing artillery shells in 12 states.

Is war and military spending really good for the economy?

A lot of people seem to think so. In fact, President Joe Biden is selling the latest proposal to send military aid to Israel and Ukraine as an economic stimulus plan. But this notion that spending money for war somehow boosts the economy is rooted in a pervasive economic fallacy.

When Biden rolled out his latest military aid package, he explained it like this.

We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores, our own stockpiles, with new equipment. Equipment that defends America and is made in America. Patriot missiles for air defense batteries, made in Arizona. Artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas. And so much more.”

What a deal right?

Except it isn’t.

This only sounds good if you buy into the “broken window fallacy” first explained by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his essay That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen, and later expanded on by Henry Hazlitt in his book Economics in One Lesson.

In a nutshell, people who make claims about the economic boom created by war are only considering the visible effects of military spending. They are ignoring all of the economic activity that never happens because the government is manufacturing artillery shells in 12 states.

Imagine that somebody throws a rock through a shop window. Many economists will argue that’s good for the economy because the shop owner will have to pay the window fixer to repair the window. As Bastiat put it in his essay, “If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation: ‘It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?’

You see, the shopowner’s misfortune is the glass fixer’s good luck.

With the money he makes fixing the window, the glazier can go buy a new suit. The tailor will then have money in his pocket to go to a baseball game. The owner of the baseball team benefits from another fan in the seats, and on and on it goes. The broken window led to a string of economic transactions. As Bastiat put it, the careless child “spurred trade to the amount of six francs.”

On the surface, it does seem as if the broken window led to a small economic boom. But when you dig below the surface, it becomes clear that the boom is a mirage.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, ‘Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.’”

What have we missed?

We don’t see the money that was never spent.

If the shopkeeper hadn’t had to spend 6 francs on a new window, he would have bought a pair of shoes. Now, that transaction won’t happen and the cobbler won’t receive that income. As a result, the cobbler will have to postpone buying a new book for his library.

Bastiat sums it up this way.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is seen.
“If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is not seen.”

A good economist always tries to account for the unseen. But sadly, most people aren’t good economists — and that includes a lot of economists.

It should be clear breaking a window does not make society better off. It becomes even more clear when you magnify the destruction to the level produced by a war. Sure, countries spend billions making stuff to blow things up and later repairing the inevitable damage. Military contractors reap the benefits. But you have to stop and consider the cost to others. I doubt anybody in Ukraine or Gaza will claim they’re better off because the US sent over some artillery shells. And just stop and imagine what would have been done with those billions had these wars never been wages.

Destruction isn’t progress. This is just silly, Keynesian claptrap.

And as Connor O’Keeffe pointed out in an article published by the Mises Wire, the fundamental economic problem goes beyond the destruction caused by war. It’s the fact that people are forced to pay for things they don’t really want.

When the American people are forced to pay for weapons and equipment to replace those sent to Ukraine, they lose out on all the economic activity that they would have preferred to partake in, just like the shopkeeper.
“And although, like the glazier, the five prime defense contractors benefit from the influx of tax dollars, the American people as a whole can only be made worse off. There is no growth, only a forced transfer of wealth to the weapons companies.”

---

Watch Elon Musk Channel Alex Jones & Slam Environmentalist Death Cult [see site link, above, top]

 

[Apollonian]

Is the Financial Theft of the Ukraine War Over? “Corruption may be a Primary Driver of this War”​

By Dr. Joseph Mercola
Global Research, November 15, 2023

Link: https://www.globalresearch.ca/financial-theft-ukraine-war-over/5840061/

[vid at site link, above]

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
For years, Ukraine was recognized as one of the most, if not “the” most, corrupt nation in Europe. The country is now struggling to rein in corruption as that is becoming a key hurdle to obtain more financial support
According to official aid trackers, the U.S. had sent $76.8 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as of the end of July 2023. The European Union contributed another $85.1 billion in that same timeframe. In mid-October 2023, Biden proposed yet another $105 billion foreign aid package, $61 billion of which will go to Ukraine
According to U.S. officials, at least 70,000 of Ukraine’s 500,000 troops had been killed by mid-August 2023, and another 100,000 to 120,000 wounded. Another 9,614 Ukrainian civilians had also been killed as of September 10, 2023
The supply of cannon fodder is running so low that Ukraine recently updated its conscription law to include women. Women between the ages of 18 and 60 with medical backgrounds must register for military service as of October 1, 2023
Corruption may be a primary driver of this war. The American public being robbed and Ukraine drained of its youths while a relatively small number of corrupt individuals stuff their pockets with cash. American and European taxpayers are paying for the destruction of Ukraine and the elimination of huge numbers of its inhabitants, so that technocrat globalists and central bankers can then profit from the privatization and rebuilding of Ukraine into a “smart country” model for the rest of the world
*

For years, Ukraine was recognized as one of the most, if not “the” most, corrupt nation in Europe. It held on to that reputation all the way up to the day Russia invaded in late February 2022, at which point media worldwide suddenly started rewriting history.
As noted by Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, in a sober and clear-eyed article, published in April 2022:1
“Statements from U.S. and other Western officials, as well as pervasive accounts in the news media, have created a stunningly misleading image of Ukraine. There has been a concerted effort to portray the country… as a plucky and noble bulwark of freedom and democracy …
The notion that Ukraine was such an appealing democratic model in Eastern Europe that the country’s mere existence terrified Putin … is a myth … Even before the war erupted, there were ugly examples of authoritarianism in Ukraine’s political governance …
The neo-Nazi Azov Battalion was an integral part of President Petro Poroshenko’s military and security apparatus, and it has retained that role during Zelensky’s presidency …
The country is not a symbol of freedom and liberal democracy, and the war is not an existential struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. At best, Ukraine is a corrupt, quasi‐democratic entity with troubling repressive policies.
Given that sobering reality, calls for Americans to ‘stand with Ukraine’ are misplaced. Preserving Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity most certainly are not worth the United States risking war with a nuclear-armed Russia.”
Indeed, while President Biden kept sending tens of billions of American taxpayer dollars to Ukraine in the name of “defending democracy,” Zelensky banned all opposition parties in the country and blacklisted American politicians and journalists who questioned the U.S. involvement in the conflict.2 So much for democracy and democratic values.

Is Ukraine Aid Part of a Money Laundering Scheme?​

According to the Panama Papers3,4 released in 2016, which have been described as “a giant leak of more than 11.5 million financial and legal records [which] exposes a system that enables crime, corruption and wrongdoing,” Zelensky is likely just as corrupt as his predecessors, as he, his wife and several associates all own “hidden offshore assets.”
With that in mind, why is the U.S. sending billions of dollars to Ukraine without requiring any kind of accounting for where all this money is going? According to official aid trackers, the U.S. had sent $76.8 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as of the end of July 2023.5,6
The European Union contributed another $85.1 billion in that same timeframe.7 And, in mid-October 2023, Biden proposed yet another $105 billion foreign aid package, $61 billion of which will go to Ukraine.8,9
The lack of oversight combined with the lack of Ukrainian progress in the conflict and the refusal to enter into peace negotiations raises suspicions that these aid packages may simply be another money laundering scheme like we saw with FTX.10,11 At least $178 million sent to Ukraine through the now-defunct FTX crypto exchange may have been laundered back to the Democratic Party in the U.S.12

Ukraine Still Rife with Corruption​

Lately, mainstream media have started to revisit the issue of corruption in Ukraine, probably because public perception of corruption may undermine the entire operation.
For example, October 2, 2023, Politico reported receiving a “sensitive but unclassified” strategy paper in which Biden administration officials warn that “Perceptions of high-level corruption” could “undermine the Ukrainian public’s and foreign leaders’ confidence in the war-time government.” According to Politico:13
“The administration wants to press Ukraine to cut graft … But being too loud about the issue could embolden opponents of U.S. aid to Ukraine, many of them Republican lawmakers who are trying to block such assistance. Any perception of weakened American support for Kyiv also could cause more European countries to think twice about their role.
Ukrainian graft has long been a concern of U.S. officials … But the topic was deemphasized in the wake of Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion …
More than a year into the full-scale war, U.S. officials are pressing the matter more in public and private. National security adviser Jake Sullivan, for instance, met in early September with a delegation from Ukrainian anti-corruption institutions.

A second U.S. official familiar with the discussions confirmed to POLITICO reports that the Biden administration is talking to Ukrainian leaders about potentially conditioning future economic aid on ‘reforms to tackle corruption and make Ukraine a more attractive place for private investment.’”
No such conditions have been proposed for military aid, however, which makes up the bulk of the money spent on Ukraine. Similarly, in mid-September 2023, Reuters reported14 that “billions of dollars of aid earmarked for Zelensky’s government as well as ambitions to join the European Union ride on Ukraine proving that it is serious about fighting corruption and embracing good governance.”
Zelensky, for his part, has increasingly tried to portray himself as a staunch corruption fighter, firing more than a dozen senior officials on corruption charges in January 2023.
In August he also fired all the heads of the draft offices across the country, after it became known that men were bribing their way out of military service by paying for medical exemptions.15 In September he also fired his minister of defense over allegations of corruption within the ministry. A Ukrainian Supreme Court justice was also arrested this past summer for taking bribes.16
Yet, such mass firings and arrests of high-level individuals have done little to quell rumors and accusations that Zelensky still tolerates corruption within his inner circle,17 perhaps because it’s true. According to a top adviser to Zelensky, who spoke to a Time journalist off the record, “People are stealing like there’s no tomorrow.”18

An Expensive Unwinnable War​

In a September 2023 meeting with U.S. senators, Zelensky pleaded for more funds saying “You’re giving money. We’re giving our lives.”19 Indeed, according to U.S. officials, at least 70,000 of Ukraine’s 500,000 troops had been killed by mid-August 2023, and another 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.20
Another 9,614 Ukrainian civilians had also been killed as of September 10, 2023.21 So many Ukrainian youths have been thrown into the meat grinder that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers is now 43. Men up to the age of 60 face the risk of being drafted at any time.
The supply of cannon fodder is running so low that Ukraine recently updated its conscription law to include women.22 Women between the ages of 18 and 60 with medical backgrounds, including doctors, nurses, midwives, dentists and pharmacists, must register for military service as of October 1, 2023.
However, unlike their male counterparts, women are not barred from leaving the country unless they’re called in for active duty.23,24 Ukraine is also trying to get as many Ukrainians back from other countries as well. To that end, Norway recently announced it will pay EUR 1,500 in cash to any Ukrainian willing to go home.25
Yet despite the enormous sums of money being poured into Ukraine, the weapons sent, the conscription of women and aged civilians, Ukraine is making no headway and have no conceivable way of winning. Even some of Zelensky’s closest aides are now saying he’s “deluding himself” thinking he can still somehow win.26
NATO countries are running out of ammunition and warn of shortages,27 while Russia has ramped up its military hardware production more than tenfold.28 And, even if we continue to supply the weapons, Ukraine is running out of able-bodied fighters to use them.29

Preplanned Post-War Profiteering​

In the final analysis, one wonders whether corruption might actually be a primary driver of this war. Is the American public being robbed and Ukraine drained of its youths while a relatively small number of corrupt individuals stuff their pockets with cash?
It looks that way, especially in light of the news that BlackRock, which already owns most of the private assets in the world, is positioning itself to profit from a post-war Ukraine. As reported by Business Today in early May 2023:30
“President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, recently met with the management team of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset management company, to discuss the creation of an investment fund aimed at restoring the country’s economy through public and private capital. Netzines have not taken well to the news with many criticizing Zelensky over the meeting.
A Twitter user said, ‘Taxpayers pay the war bills, private firms get the profits.’ ‘Ukraine being privatized and sold off to companies like Blackrock,’ another said.
According to the press service of the Office of the President, the parties discussed the details of the investment fund’s creation and implementation of large-scale business projects in Ukraine.”
The U.S. is also keen on Ukraine privatizing its banks,31 which will open the door for central bankers to take over. And let’s not forget that the big picture plan for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction is to turn the whole country into smart cities with “smart governments” run by artificial intelligence.32,33
It’s also a testing ground for warfare-related AI technologies34,35 said to be “paving the way for AI warfare in the future,”36 although it doesn’t appear to provide them with much advantage at the moment.
In short, it appears American and European taxpayers are paying for the destruction of Ukraine and the elimination of huge numbers of its inhabitants, so that technocrat globalists and central bankers can then profit from the privatization and rebuilding of Ukraine into a “smart country” model for the rest of the world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Notes
1 Cato April 6, 2022
2 Fox News July 25, 2022
3 ICJJ.org Panama Papers
4 Panamapapers.org
5, 7 Council on Foreign Relations September 21, 2023
6 Kiel Institute for the World Economy Aid to Ukraine Tracker
8, 15, 18, 19, 26 Time November 1, 2023
9 ABC News October 18, 2023
10 CNBC November 15, 2022
11 YouTube, How FTX CEO $32 Billion Fraud
12 Peace Liberty Prosperity Substack November 13, 2022
13, 31 Politico October 2, 2023
14, 17 Reuters September 19, 2023, Corruption accusations continue to plague top Zelenskiy aides
16 BBC May 16, 2023
20 New York Times August 18, 2023 (Archived)
21 UN Human Rights Ukraine Civilian Casualty Update 11 September 2023
22 Aljazeera October 6, 2023
23 Visit Ukraine Military Registration for Women
24 Kyiv Post September 8, 2023
25 Visit Ukraine Norway Will Provide Money to Ukrainians Who Want to Return Home
27 VOA News October 4, 2023
28 Reuters September 19, 2023
29 Insider October 27, 2023
30 Business Today May 6, 2023
32 Journal of Cleaner Production September 2023; 419: 138323
33 KMU.gov.ua Draft Ukraine Recovery Plan July 2022
34 Washington Post May 31, 2023
35 US Embassy in Georgia July 26, 2023
36 National Defense March 24, 2023
Featured image: APR-23-2022 Press conference of Volodymyr Zelenskyy the President of Ukraine during Russian Ukrainian war at Kyiv Metro station to protect against air strikes. Kyiv, Ukraine
The original source of this article is Mercola
Copyright © Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola, 2023

 

[Apollonian]

Biden-omics is huge BUST, suckers--spending, debt, inflation way up; salaries, wages down, employment for illegals is up, but for citizens is down

 

[Apollonian]

The F-35 fighter will now cost more than $2 trillion​

The eye-popping price tag has not fixed the maintenance issues plaguing the program, a government watchdog says​

REPORTING | MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

1. Military Industrial Complex
2. F-35

CONNOR ECHOLS
APR 17, 2024

Link: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/f35-cost/

The F-35 fighter jet program will cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion over its lifetime, cementing its place as one of the most expensive weapons programs in U.S. history, according to new estimates from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent government watchdog.
The new price tag represents a dramatic jump from a 2018 estimate that set the program’s total cost at $1.7 trillion. Most of the bump comes from projected sustainment costs, which increased by 44 percent to a cool $1.58 trillion over the lifetime of the program. The Pentagon also extended the projected life of the plane to 2088 rather than the previous goal of 2077.
The news comes as Congress considers President Joe Biden’s budget proposal for next year, which asks for a record $895 billion in military funding. The spending package is separate from the White House’s request for $106 billion to fund weapons transfers to and security cooperation with Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine, which is still languishing in the House after passing the Senate earlier this year.
Of course, it’s not all bad news on the financial front. The Pentagon has brought down the estimated lifetime cost per F-35 by simply buying more jets and reducing the number of flight hours they will be expected to perform each year, according to the GAO.
But this is less than ideal on the war-fighting side of the equation. All three versions of the F-35 continue to fall far short of their target “mission capable rates,” a term of art referring to the percentage of time that any given aircraft is actually ready for battle. In 2023, the average F-35A was only in flying shape about 52% of the time — far short of the 90% target set by the Air Force, the GAO reports.
The jets have often been stuck on the ground due to engine design flaws that cause the aircraft to overheat, damaging parts and boosting maintenance costs. This inability to stay in the air has made it more difficult to get pilots sufficient training in real-life scenarios, which increases the likelihood of crashes and other costly accidents, according to Dan Grazier of the Project on Government Oversight.
The effort to fix these engine issues helps show why the F-35’s costs keep rising. In the early 2010s, the Pentagon asked military contractors to propose a new engine prototype while simultaneously pushing RTX subsidiary Pratt and Whitney to upgrade its original F-35 engine. Last year, the Defense Department told Congress that it no longer needs the $588 million per year prototype program, but lawmakers refused to kill it, choosing instead to fund the prototype and the upgrades simultaneously in a move one expert derided as “just throwing money at everything.”
Members of Congress defended the decision to keep the prototype by arguing that it will help advance technology for the next generation of fighter jets. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) — a lead proponent of keeping the General Electric-led engine program — also happens to have a brand new GE Aerospace plant in his district.
Besides parochial concerns, the Pentagon also tends to underestimate the cost of programs in early stages of development. Just last week, the Congressional Budget Office revealed that the Navy drastically underestimated the cost of a new medium landing ship to carry small Marine Corps units. Early estimates put the program’s cost at $2.6 billion, but CBO says the Pentagon will most likely have to shell out between $6.2 billion and $7.8 billion for the ships — an overrun of more than 100%.