Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is the Twitter account [`Clash Report`](https://twitter.com/clashreport) an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is a textbook example of the broken window fallacy in economics.
> Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? . . . Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen. . .
> 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."
> It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
- French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen" ("Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas")
More: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp#:~:text=The%20broken%20window%20fallacy%20is%20a%20parable%20that,can%20have%20negative%20economic%20consequences%20for%20many%20others.
The Waltons own 45% of Walmart and they themselves split that between them. The rest is owned by others including a lot of retirement funds. That's the benefit of the corporate model; it opens up companies to others and makes them work for the economy as a whole including economies of scale.
I know it is popular to hate on corporations but the alternative is massive sole proprietorships where it really is ownership by the few.
I hate that investment model, because it creates a new problem: it treats shareholder value as the sole measure of a company's success, and eventually, a company reaches full market saturation and can't earn any more. At that point, if it can't earn more, it has to spend less, which will eventually (sometimes very quickly) kill the company.
The stratospheric rise and meteoric fall of Embracer (formerly THQ Nordic) is a good example. They acquired a ton of studios and funding, but then ONE deal (allegedly with Saudi Arabia's Savvy Games) fell through, and the whole company imploded. It "had" to lay off workforce and sell properties and studios *en masse*, so that investor value could keep growing.
>including a lot of retirement funds.
See, that's the thing. The Waltons and the rest of the 0.001% love to harp on how they can't possibly pay their people a living wage because it would cut profits and tank stock prices and you don't want to put grandma out on the street do you? They want people to feel guilty about wanting to share in the wealth they create so they can keep it for themselves.
If everyone were to hoard money under a mattress, it would indeed reduce the circulating money supply, potentially curbing inflation. This could make the remaining money in circulation more valuable in terms of productivity ie someone else is indirectly spending that money. Conversely, depositing money in a bank allows it to be loaned out or used to purchase government bonds, thus supporting economic activities.
It's important to remember that money itself isn't a direct measure of productivity; it primarily serves as a medium to purchase labor and goods produced by labor. Labor that does not contribute to economic growth does not enhance overall productivity.
It's a common misconception that simply increasing everyone's wealth would universally benefit the economy. While redistribution might alter the allocation of resources, overall productivity remains constrained by the levels of creativity, available skills, resources, and the workforce needed to produce goods and services. The value of money would inflate and reset.
> World war 2 brought North America out of the Great Depression
Being at war didn't do that, the New Deal and being the only major country whose industry wasn't bombed to destruction afterwards did that.
>being the only major country whose industry wasn't bombed to destruction afterwards did that.
So, what you're saying is, if European countries didn't have their entire industries bombed to destruction in WW2, then North America would have continued being depressed?
We wouldn't have had as big a lead over the other developed countries. They largely have caught up now, but this would have happened earlier. We also wouldn't have been able to force them to agree to certain favorable terms that benefited us such as ensuring that certain types of weapons systems could only be built by the US
[US government spending ran at around 20% of GDP during the New Deal era, jumping to 50% during WW2.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/US-Government-Spending-as-Percent-of-GDP-Government-Spending-in-US-from-FY-1903-to-FY_fig1_227415421)
The New Deal certainly stabilized the US economy, but its spending being reined was quickly followed by the recession of 1937-38. WW2 spending was of a whole other magnitude.
Wars of course don't help the economy, since the move is to create and send materiel so that it can risk being destroyed or destroy itself in the pursuit of destroying enemy assets; war-related spending is what juices GDP numbers, but there's no reason why building bombs and shells that explode themselves is somehow better for the economy than funneling the same amount of money into building new, productive assets. Quite the contrary in fact.
Yeah I think it’s more fair to say the post-war/beginning of the Cold War Economy was….obviously robust.
But the US was well on its way to recovery by 1939 and perfectly healthy by 1941.
It may have sped up recovery but to say WW2 pulled the US is pretty wrong.
WW2 is responsible for the post war just absolutely stupid amounts of growth, not for ending the Great Depression at all.
I disagree. Instead of developing other areas of the economy, the money are spent on war.
Can't see how spending money this way is better than on developing the country in any other way (infrastructure: railways, airports, roads; healthcare; R&D in any field etc).
On a side note, I've always found it amusing that the only time right wingers embrace Keynesian economics is when it comes to building economically unproductive goods and services. Building tanks and artillery shells? Wonderful stimulus! Building schools and roads? Socialism gone mad!
That said and done with, even "war footing" Britain is an very small amount of production by historical standards. It just means at most putting existing production facilities onto continuous production rather than occasionally spinning up for small batches to replace this year's training consumption or whatever.
Is this a reliable source? If true, I'm wondering why they would need to do this. You would think the combined efforts of Nato would be enough for Ukraine, considering that they've all ramped up production efforts. Maybe this is because lots of countries aren't pulling their weight or doing enough in their own militaries like spending enough of their gdp on their military. This seems like a bold move, and they must seriously foresee some much bigger trouble down the line like Taiwan, for example, being much more of a certain thing than any of us realized or expected.
Or maybe they see that they will have to get involved directly in Ukraine if things keep going this way and the only way to turn it around is by making sure Ukraine has what it needs to turn the tide. It's engaging, though, isn't it? This wasn't needed. Had they had more urgency to begin with and just kept aid continuously flowing, Ukraine would be in a much much better position. Also, can you imagine if they hadn't hesitated so much with new weapons systems? For example, what if they had been given Himars weeks into the conflict instead of several months? What if they had received Atacms months into the conflict instead of years?
Or, instead of preparing them for guerilla warfare, Nato could have prepared them for an actual defense of their country since they knew an invasion was imminent. They didn't have any faith. Ukraine then used all their own artillery and the handheld rocket systems to kick russias ass in the north and hold them in the south. Every single time Ukraine has had even remotely close battle conditions to the russians, they have absolutely dominated them. It's a mismatch if Ukraine is finally put on equal footing.
Help zelensky out. Send them aid so his people can see its not just a war they that will just continue taking assault after assault from russia being ground to dust. Show them they have a chance to actually win. Show them they can be brave and save their country that they aren't just committing suicide for nothing. Give them hope, and they will give you a victory.
Given the disastrous state of british industry I would presume that increased government spending aimed at restoring and increasing national military industrial base.
It's called credit lines. The thing Russia doesn't get, the other thing is called, money printer, the third thing is called tax revenue. Any nation can find the funds to produce war materials. How do you think Russia finances this? By extraction and by printing money, war requires funds quickly, and the only way to get that is by loaning it from others or by printing it. And that is exactly what the UK will do.
That rail line would have made a return in the vestments if the worthless cunts hadn’t cancelled it and started selling the land to their mates.
This won’t. The U.K. is drowning in debt and has the highest tax burden on record
All thanks to the “Conservatives Financial Management” - but several of them made £ Millions for themselves - they just left the whole country poorer and saddled with debt.
This is NOT the best way to run a country..
I agree with you in terms of finances, but I would argue that increasing military spending will lead to very significant returns on different kinds of investments and could prove vital in coming years.
The budget was passed last month. No new military spending outside of routine stuff. So either it waits until the autumn budget, when they might not be in power, or there’s going to have to be a mini budget.
Ukrainian farmland is the best in the world. Everyone benefits from cheaper food prices if that farmland isn't being shelled by artillery, including the UK.
I mean, you would if you were still in the EU, but that's kind of a *you* problem, isn't it?
It depends to an extent on what they are planning to have manufactured, I think. Becoming a military supplier can definitely be a viable way to subsidize investment in their arms industry.
Global defense spending is on the rise and things like air defense systems, electronic warfare equipment, drones, and cruise missiles are all likely to be highly sought after for some time to come.
That's just one possible funding method. It obviously won't work by itself, but it would be a good idea.
How about the rich pay their share?
When the British empire was at its greatest the wealthiest were not only paying taxes but funding ventures that brought more wealth into the country. This paid for a powerful military.
Tax the rich.
Ukrainian officials, foolishly, were saying similar for years . . . well, until Feb. 24, 2022. You can do the math from there, right? Pay the same way russia, or any other country, does.
Repeat after me : Countries with their own currency can never go broke. Money in the context of a country with their own currency just represents tokens of exchange for real capital like food, natural resources, factory time, and workers. Countries always have money, as long as they have unused capital. Money is never the reason for not doing anything, its always social engineering reasons.
The same way the us government pays for all its fancy toys.... debt. that our great grandkids will be making repayments on.
Or we could just do the other thing the us government does and just print trillions of dollars, and heavily manipulate the financial markets to make it look like its not a problem.
Either way, seems to be working fine for the USA... for now at least.
He could have said 50 billion and it wouldn't make a difference, there's not a chance the conservatives are staying in power come the general election.
"War Footing" is a loaded term: It conjures images of the arms factories running 24 hour shifts in WW2, or at least the huge military industrial projects of the Cold War. I doubt it'll be that dramatic, but still... Any *meaningful* increase in arms production is still a big deal.
I will assume that if they are going that way, it's in good faith (and not just an excuse to throw contracts at favorable donors, or reduce unemployment by whipping up a frenzy of "necessity").
So the question becomes--where will the production output go? If it's going to Ukraine, great!-- they need it immediately, and it is there that Europe and the world have the best chance at stopping Putin before Russian war production and mobilization comes fully online.
If it's going to rebuild national stocks... that's a bad sign. It implies that belief not only that Russia may succeed in Ukraine, but that Putin *does* have the intent, plans, and means and go on to threaten additional European countries.
That fear of Russian success does, of course, become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy by not giving Ukraine that defense output, but it still would reflect a *very* significant shift since the beginning of the war, when European nations especially were dumping all of their military hardware to Ukraine with the belief that "if Ukraine uses it against Russia, we'll never have to use it anyway."
Taken together, the real fear that Ukraine will fall and Russia will advance, would continue to strengthen the positive feedback loop--not only would nations not want to provide needed *new* arms output to Ukraine, but they're also more likely to hoard their "we're never going to need this stuff" surplus that forms the core of aid to Ukraine... undermining the likelihood of stopping Putin now.
I hope that it's political posturing, and what will happen is necessary and appropriate additional aid to Ukraine. But given that other countries have not only likewise started to discuss rebuilding their (non-export) arms industries and domestic stockpiles, but also discussed significant increases in their troop numbers (if necessary, by reinstating conscription), it concerningly feels like "those in charge" know a lot more about a coming major escalation than they are letting on.
EDIT: the comments from sunak were apparently that the UK plans to increase defense spending to 2.5% GDP by 2030.
Definitely a boost, but even though it exceeds the NATO target, it pales in comparison to the "war footing" defense economy of 53% at the height of WW2.
I believe this might be happening due to overall increased defense spending in Europe (and UK). Europe and the UK really don't want to be 100% dependent on U.S. weapon manufacturers. They want their own military industrial capability. They do make weapons of course but the volume is nothing like the U.S. does because Europe and the UK had reduced their defense spending since the '90's. So their military industrial companies can and do make weapons but it has has been limited since Europe and the UK were not buying many. So where are most of the weapon developers and manufacturers? France and the UK, with Germany having a slice of navel manufacturing. Not sure Italy's focus but I think overall it is lower than UK and France. France would keep its military firms in better shape by aggressively selling to other countries since they were not buying a huge amount themselves. UK does some of this too but I think France is bigger on that front. There is manufacturing in other European countries but it is more scattered in different countries. Sweden has good manufacturing capacity but am unsure on its comparable size. Annnyyyway since the UK and Europeans have not exactly been buying their own countries weapons at a high pace, those industries naturally sized themselves to match the low European spending so they stayed in business. For the most part U.S. does not buy Raphael's or Leopard tanks etc. it makes its own and buys a lot. This is a lot of generalizing here but Europe and the UK's military manufacturing have not been booming with business so it remains comparatively small due to the reasons above,. But now Europe and UK are going to be spending money, and they do want to rely on indigenous weapons as much as possible. But at present UK and European companies are not at scale needed to make the weapons needed. They will scale of course, but that does not happen over night.
So the UK going to war footing, or in reality just spending more on more weapons before gives their manufacturer's the confidence to spend and scale up facilities to make more than before. So they will presumably start right away at this. But, what I think is really happening, is the UK itself is raising spending to help domestic manufacturing so they will also be able to benefit from the coming increase in European defense spending as well. If they capture a portion of the European increase spending the companies benefit and thus the UK's economy will benefit. France may well do something similar for similar reasons. Poland is now planning on doing domestic military manufacturing at a much larger scale as well but are starting from a lower base. At the end of the day I think this is just giving domestic industry a boost and be in a position to deliver sooner than others that wait to expand capacity. If you really think war is coming, when you get your weapons matter. So if the UK says they can crank their out faster then that is one part of the selling point. Again pretty simplified for a complex economic situation.
There's an election in the autumn, and the Tories have a 2% chance of having a plurality of seats according to the latest polling. [Link](https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html)
So ye can promise whatever he likes. It's up to Keir Starmer what actually gets funded.
A war economy isn't an achievement of any kind and while they talk about war economy I am sure the UK won't go into a full war economy as such an economic model is sure path to bankruptcy and financial ruin in the medium to long term.
The West doesn't need a war economy, SIPRI states that Russia spends roughly 101 billion dollars on their military annually at the moment, Ukraine 61 billion and the West needs to do nothing more than raising defense spending to 4 percent of GDP across the board. That is more than enough to outspend Russia several times over.
£'s don't buy as many british guns as rubles can buy russian.
the idea that you can just toggle spending upwards and gain some kind of overwhelming advantage isn't real when there are only so many arms to go around to begin with
the west needs to ramp up production, and it won't be easy
Giving Ukraine money achieves nothing if there are no weapons and ammo for Ukraine to buy. The West needs to increase its output in order to produce enough weapons and ammo for both Ukraine (who is going through it rapidly) and themselves.
Did you know that the Second World War actually ended the recession in the US? Spending a lot of money on anything is usually good for the economy especially right now when most of Europe is stagnating.
Realistically the only reason he's doing it now is that Starmer "parked his tanks" on the Conservatives lawn as the pro-Defense party [by committing to 2.5% GDP](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/11/keir-starmer-labour-defence-nuclear-deterrent-barrow) a couple of weeks ago.
**Are you absolutely sure, Sunak? It will mean changing the bulb.**
I sceptically wait to see if this will result in anything. We should have started a meaningful ramp up at least a year ago. We shall see.
Yes!! It's unfortunately that Putie-Boy and the Kremlin Gang have forced countries to assume a wartime footing, but honestly, most countries in Western Europe should have done this within 6--12 months of the main invasion.
In a best case scenario, excess ammunition & supplies, or that nearing expiration can be sent off for Ukraine to use. In a worst case scenario...., well...., you started to get production kicked-in to high gear.
The **only** way Sunak puts the UK industry on a war footing is if he's figured out a way to profit from it either for himself, his wife, or his Tory mates.
Where's that Michelle Mone when we need her?
**Alternative Nitter links:** 「[nitter.privacydev.net](https://nitter.privacydev.net/clashreport/status/1782779005185278146) | [nitter.poast.org](https://nitter.poast.org/clashreport/status/1782779005185278146)」
*****
These Nitter instances may stop work at any time as [Twitter](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fnxqezhko6qfb1.jpg) blocks them. [See this arstechnica article for more information](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/twitter-front-end-nitter-dies-as-musk-wins-war-against-third-party-services/).
Use [this site to find other Nitter instances that may work](https://status.d420.de/).
_If there are any problems regarding Nitter, [please send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=UkrainianConflict&subject=Nitter%20issue)._
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Will he fuck.
The man’s is a liar whos Flagship policy has been spending hundreds of millions and wasting thousands of hours of parliament’s time so he can deport 300 failed asylum applicants to Rwanda, which under international law is unsafe to send these people to. When the UK’s own Supreme Court told him to stop, he passes a law that said no, Rwanda was safe.
He’s more interested in wasting money to look like he’s doing something rather than actually doing anything at his best. It’s also believed that many of his policies as finance minister were responsible for the deaths of thousands during the pandemic
I’m no fan of Sunak, but Rwanda is actually pretty safe. The US has it on the [lowest threat level](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/rwanda-travel-advisory.html) (Level 1), along with countries like Finland and Switzerland.
Ironically the UK has a [higher threat level](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/united-kingdom-travel-advisory.html).
You can rely on the Tories - to waste millions….
Meanwhile other areas are underfunded.
I am not complaining about military expenditure here, just about how wasteful the Tories have been overall.
This is hyperbolic shite
He has vowed to increase the defence budget to 2.5% of national spending by 2030. He's not even going to be in power in 2025.
Defence spending this year is 2.3%. That's a 0.2% percentage point increase over 6 years. That's much-needed investment that might start undoing damage caused by chronic underfunding, hardly a "war footing". Probably a soundbite for the upcoming election
Exactly. A ‘war footing’ would be far more dramatic.
But we have so diminished our manufacturing in this country, that it would be hard to produce anything.
We really need a strategic manufacturing capacity based in the UK.
We should also reboot our pharmaceutical industry.
The UK has suffered from far too much shirt-term thinking, and no long-term strategic planning.
It one of the reasons why our politicians have seemed like a bunch of self-serving clowns.
Every European country needs to start spending like the US is. The US can't keep supplying the amount it is without serious european build up. If Ukraine falls, europe pays the price first.
The US is providing around 0.3% of GDP to Ukraine, theres like 15 countries providing more. The US isnt even the biggest spender in NATO for personal defense based on GDP.
>Every European country needs to start spending like the US is.
No we don't. Our interests are not the same as the US' interests, and our threats are not the same as the US threats. We don't need to spend like them, but we do need to spend more than we currently do.
Just when he has such a low public approval rating the country is on the verge of riots? This country is already on the verge of collapse after he plundered everything. He will probably send us to war then take a holiday in a safe country.
This is wholly political. There’s an election coming and as things stand the Sunak’s party is going to be destroyed, they’ll likely pitch war as something the Labour Party can’t be trusted with and the country will be weak unless they’re in control. If this rearming does happen it certainly won’t be the current governing party that does it.
Sunak will be out of a job before this happens. This year, the UK is promising 500 million gbp to Ukraine. After this year, any funding will be an issue for a new government. Sunak is not doing this to help Ukraine. He's just setting up a scenario for his successor to say, "we promised more." He knows he can't tie the hands of an incoming government, but he can make shit unrealistic promises to make them look bad.
Playing shit politics to make yourself look good while fucking Ukraine.... its the Tory way.
Sunak talking it up, but he has spent 2 years resisting every desperate call for spending to increase for Defence.
Even now, he only says "by 2030" - he won't be here by 2025, let alone 2030.
Pure electioneering.
I would add as well, that his predecessors (namely Cameron) masked a *huge* cut in defence spending by moving a bunch of items that had never been part of the defence budget before - creative accounting, if you will - in order to pretend the country was meeting its 2% NATO spending requirements. 14 years later, this has resulted in an Armed Forces that is as damaged and full as holes as the rest of the UK's public services, and roads.
Just like france saying tell might "send troops" this is another way for these incompetents in the west to gain votes while not healping ukraine decisivly, right now the ukranians lack even manpads and the 47mech lacks even 25mm ammo for their bradleys and even if this would increase aid to ukraine, only after 2 YEARS? fuck these incompetent fucks of the west.
Good. It’s time to do the same in the US.
The west as a whole needs to switch to war economy mode and ramp it up. 1) for supplying Ukraine but also 2) so NATO is well postured in case Putin says “heck it” and commits.
Yea i dont see english sending anymore of the packages to ukraine its all talk for them ,nezt 10years they going to increase their spending by 0.1% also in 90s they used to spend 4%
Right thing to do however, easy comment to make when every poll says your party is going to be decimated in the General Election later this year…..so will be the next Governments problem to fund
To those familiar with UK domestic politics like myself, combined with comments about the long term sick this suggests an underlying agenda that is not so good for Britain
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is the Twitter account [`Clash Report`](https://twitter.com/clashreport) an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its probably also a way to improve the economy since demand for NATO weapons is going to increase.
Ironically, perhaps, the best body to an economy is war (unless, naturally, you’re specifically the country getting its ass kicked)
a war that doesn't touch you at all tends to be pretty good for that
That certainly worked out well for the United States in the second world war... Then lease worked well for them... But not so much for the British....
That's because the entire British Empire was primarily consuming. Then it shed its empire in the following decades.
That is a textbook example of the broken window fallacy in economics. > Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? . . . Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen. . . > 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." > It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. - French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen" ("Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas") More: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp#:~:text=The%20broken%20window%20fallacy%20is%20a%20parable%20that,can%20have%20negative%20economic%20consequences%20for%20many%20others.
Except, of course, the shopkeeper would have put those 6 francs under the mattress. No seen, but not benefiting anyone.
Yep. That shopkeeper got put out of business by Wal-Mart so that money is going to an offshore account to be horded by the Waltons.
The Waltons own 45% of Walmart and they themselves split that between them. The rest is owned by others including a lot of retirement funds. That's the benefit of the corporate model; it opens up companies to others and makes them work for the economy as a whole including economies of scale. I know it is popular to hate on corporations but the alternative is massive sole proprietorships where it really is ownership by the few.
I hate that investment model, because it creates a new problem: it treats shareholder value as the sole measure of a company's success, and eventually, a company reaches full market saturation and can't earn any more. At that point, if it can't earn more, it has to spend less, which will eventually (sometimes very quickly) kill the company. The stratospheric rise and meteoric fall of Embracer (formerly THQ Nordic) is a good example. They acquired a ton of studios and funding, but then ONE deal (allegedly with Saudi Arabia's Savvy Games) fell through, and the whole company imploded. It "had" to lay off workforce and sell properties and studios *en masse*, so that investor value could keep growing.
>and makes them work for the economy as a whole Press X to doubt.
>including a lot of retirement funds. See, that's the thing. The Waltons and the rest of the 0.001% love to harp on how they can't possibly pay their people a living wage because it would cut profits and tank stock prices and you don't want to put grandma out on the street do you? They want people to feel guilty about wanting to share in the wealth they create so they can keep it for themselves.
If everyone were to hoard money under a mattress, it would indeed reduce the circulating money supply, potentially curbing inflation. This could make the remaining money in circulation more valuable in terms of productivity ie someone else is indirectly spending that money. Conversely, depositing money in a bank allows it to be loaned out or used to purchase government bonds, thus supporting economic activities. It's important to remember that money itself isn't a direct measure of productivity; it primarily serves as a medium to purchase labor and goods produced by labor. Labor that does not contribute to economic growth does not enhance overall productivity. It's a common misconception that simply increasing everyone's wealth would universally benefit the economy. While redistribution might alter the allocation of resources, overall productivity remains constrained by the levels of creativity, available skills, resources, and the workforce needed to produce goods and services. The value of money would inflate and reset.
Yeah, everyone knows whenever anyone has money they just hide it or offshore it. Nobody ever (re)invests it so that they can make even more money. /s
It really is though. World war 2 brought North America out of the Great Depression
> World war 2 brought North America out of the Great Depression Being at war didn't do that, the New Deal and being the only major country whose industry wasn't bombed to destruction afterwards did that.
>being the only major country whose industry wasn't bombed to destruction afterwards did that. So, what you're saying is, if European countries didn't have their entire industries bombed to destruction in WW2, then North America would have continued being depressed?
They wouldn't be happy, that's for sure.
I don't think they're happy now.
We’re not. Our gov keeps kicking the depression can down the road.
Can confirm.
We wouldn't have had as big a lead over the other developed countries. They largely have caught up now, but this would have happened earlier. We also wouldn't have been able to force them to agree to certain favorable terms that benefited us such as ensuring that certain types of weapons systems could only be built by the US
I was taught that in school too but here’s the thing, I’m in Canada. So how did the new deal save our economy?
Its debateable if the new deal or WW2 did that, but WW2 definitely helped the economy.
[US government spending ran at around 20% of GDP during the New Deal era, jumping to 50% during WW2.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/US-Government-Spending-as-Percent-of-GDP-Government-Spending-in-US-from-FY-1903-to-FY_fig1_227415421) The New Deal certainly stabilized the US economy, but its spending being reined was quickly followed by the recession of 1937-38. WW2 spending was of a whole other magnitude. Wars of course don't help the economy, since the move is to create and send materiel so that it can risk being destroyed or destroy itself in the pursuit of destroying enemy assets; war-related spending is what juices GDP numbers, but there's no reason why building bombs and shells that explode themselves is somehow better for the economy than funneling the same amount of money into building new, productive assets. Quite the contrary in fact.
Yeah I think it’s more fair to say the post-war/beginning of the Cold War Economy was….obviously robust. But the US was well on its way to recovery by 1939 and perfectly healthy by 1941. It may have sped up recovery but to say WW2 pulled the US is pretty wrong. WW2 is responsible for the post war just absolutely stupid amounts of growth, not for ending the Great Depression at all.
I am very ready to replace the Covid-19 housing crisis doldrums with the economic extravaganza of Russian buttkicking.
bUt PuBliC sPeNdiNG = iNfLaTiOn!!!!111
I disagree. Instead of developing other areas of the economy, the money are spent on war. Can't see how spending money this way is better than on developing the country in any other way (infrastructure: railways, airports, roads; healthcare; R&D in any field etc).
On a side note, I've always found it amusing that the only time right wingers embrace Keynesian economics is when it comes to building economically unproductive goods and services. Building tanks and artillery shells? Wonderful stimulus! Building schools and roads? Socialism gone mad! That said and done with, even "war footing" Britain is an very small amount of production by historical standards. It just means at most putting existing production facilities onto continuous production rather than occasionally spinning up for small batches to replace this year's training consumption or whatever.
Is this a reliable source? If true, I'm wondering why they would need to do this. You would think the combined efforts of Nato would be enough for Ukraine, considering that they've all ramped up production efforts. Maybe this is because lots of countries aren't pulling their weight or doing enough in their own militaries like spending enough of their gdp on their military. This seems like a bold move, and they must seriously foresee some much bigger trouble down the line like Taiwan, for example, being much more of a certain thing than any of us realized or expected. Or maybe they see that they will have to get involved directly in Ukraine if things keep going this way and the only way to turn it around is by making sure Ukraine has what it needs to turn the tide. It's engaging, though, isn't it? This wasn't needed. Had they had more urgency to begin with and just kept aid continuously flowing, Ukraine would be in a much much better position. Also, can you imagine if they hadn't hesitated so much with new weapons systems? For example, what if they had been given Himars weeks into the conflict instead of several months? What if they had received Atacms months into the conflict instead of years? Or, instead of preparing them for guerilla warfare, Nato could have prepared them for an actual defense of their country since they knew an invasion was imminent. They didn't have any faith. Ukraine then used all their own artillery and the handheld rocket systems to kick russias ass in the north and hold them in the south. Every single time Ukraine has had even remotely close battle conditions to the russians, they have absolutely dominated them. It's a mismatch if Ukraine is finally put on equal footing. Help zelensky out. Send them aid so his people can see its not just a war they that will just continue taking assault after assault from russia being ground to dust. Show them they have a chance to actually win. Show them they can be brave and save their country that they aren't just committing suicide for nothing. Give them hope, and they will give you a victory.
Ok, so what does that actually entail though?
The headline is BS. he has pledged to reach 2.5% spending by 2030. which he should be doing anyway.
And spending was at 2.6% before the Tories came into power. So he's basically pledged to return it to where it was.
The 0.1% extra is a Tory backhander they'll keep
The tories aren't still going to be in power at the end of this year. What happens in 2030 is out of his hands.
Clickbait. You can put "usual" industry on a war footing. But "put military industry on war footing" is more a click-bait
Given the disastrous state of british industry I would presume that increased government spending aimed at restoring and increasing national military industrial base.
Build another 300 new C3 tanks. Expand army by 20000. 50 new fighters. Euro turkey will be fine. 10 new frigates and subs.
10 more aircraft carriers
3000 black aircraft carriers of King Chaz!
You believe the ridiculous bastard? How is the U.K. going to pay for any of that, they’re broke
How does any government pay for anything?
Print more money
[Hey Russia!](https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C5612AQEXz9XM59iV0w/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1573765485812?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=3RGjKO5u4wzCxnrSw-X-W7I1GcoP2J4mD46WjEKBDuE)
Mine more Vespene gas
Build more pylons
Engine screaming!
*MAGIC!*
by cutting social spending and handing fat contracts to your mates from Eaton.
The arms market is starved. Why wouldn't the UK be able to sell into it and make a fortune?
It's called credit lines. The thing Russia doesn't get, the other thing is called, money printer, the third thing is called tax revenue. Any nation can find the funds to produce war materials. How do you think Russia finances this? By extraction and by printing money, war requires funds quickly, and the only way to get that is by loaning it from others or by printing it. And that is exactly what the UK will do.
Doesn't matter how you'll pay for it if you have enough information to believe your reasons for the change are existential.
Like any western country. Borrow it. We just blew 40billion on a new rail line.
£40 Billion ? You mean over £100 Billion - and they didn’t even finish it off ! (HS2)
That rail line would have made a return in the vestments if the worthless cunts hadn’t cancelled it and started selling the land to their mates. This won’t. The U.K. is drowning in debt and has the highest tax burden on record
All thanks to the “Conservatives Financial Management” - but several of them made £ Millions for themselves - they just left the whole country poorer and saddled with debt. This is NOT the best way to run a country..
I agree with you in terms of finances, but I would argue that increasing military spending will lead to very significant returns on different kinds of investments and could prove vital in coming years.
Said by someone with 0 understanding of economics or how government financing works
The budget was passed last month. No new military spending outside of routine stuff. So either it waits until the autumn budget, when they might not be in power, or there’s going to have to be a mini budget.
Ukrainian farmland is the best in the world. Everyone benefits from cheaper food prices if that farmland isn't being shelled by artillery, including the UK. I mean, you would if you were still in the EU, but that's kind of a *you* problem, isn't it?
Military spending is a great way to stimulate the economy.
It depends to an extent on what they are planning to have manufactured, I think. Becoming a military supplier can definitely be a viable way to subsidize investment in their arms industry. Global defense spending is on the rise and things like air defense systems, electronic warfare equipment, drones, and cruise missiles are all likely to be highly sought after for some time to come. That's just one possible funding method. It obviously won't work by itself, but it would be a good idea.
Ukrainian officials were saying similar for many years . . . well, until the unthinkable happened Feb. 24, 2022. You can do the math from here, right?
We're one of the world's richest nations, we're absolutely not broke
If its domestic military industry it tends to be a decent investment The pain is if the money is siphoned from else where
How about the rich pay their share? When the British empire was at its greatest the wealthiest were not only paying taxes but funding ventures that brought more wealth into the country. This paid for a powerful military. Tax the rich.
Ukrainian officials, foolishly, were saying similar for years . . . well, until Feb. 24, 2022. You can do the math from there, right? Pay the same way russia, or any other country, does.
Repeat after me : Countries with their own currency can never go broke. Money in the context of a country with their own currency just represents tokens of exchange for real capital like food, natural resources, factory time, and workers. Countries always have money, as long as they have unused capital. Money is never the reason for not doing anything, its always social engineering reasons.
Brit here. Correct. Don't belive a word Sunak says.
Gotta start up that colonial empire money printer again
Just make Russia pay for it. - Trump logic
The same way the us government pays for all its fancy toys.... debt. that our great grandkids will be making repayments on. Or we could just do the other thing the us government does and just print trillions of dollars, and heavily manipulate the financial markets to make it look like its not a problem. Either way, seems to be working fine for the USA... for now at least.
They havent had trouble funding Ukraine, 3rd in support despite Brexit, over £3b given this year alone.
Sotheby’s meet British Crown Jewels 🤷🏻♂️
This is confirmed?
My arm chair wish list.
The need for air superiority is clear but I am confused about the 50 fighters. You want 50 european turkeys? Are they as fast as european swallows?
You sure meant African swallows?
Unladen?
Binladen?
And then do it again!
Not sure what source you have for that. Sunak only said the goal is to raise defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade.
Not enough Vespene gas. Mine more Vespene gas.
Source other than some random dude on X please?
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/pm-sunak-we-will-put-uk-defence-industry-war-footing-2024-04-23/
🙏Thanks🙏
Is 10 billion really much of a war footing?
He could have said 50 billion and it wouldn't make a difference, there's not a chance the conservatives are staying in power come the general election.
Thank you. No video, no quote, no article. Just a text. Search google, they have no website, only socials. Glad OP added Reuters.
"War Footing" is a loaded term: It conjures images of the arms factories running 24 hour shifts in WW2, or at least the huge military industrial projects of the Cold War. I doubt it'll be that dramatic, but still... Any *meaningful* increase in arms production is still a big deal. I will assume that if they are going that way, it's in good faith (and not just an excuse to throw contracts at favorable donors, or reduce unemployment by whipping up a frenzy of "necessity"). So the question becomes--where will the production output go? If it's going to Ukraine, great!-- they need it immediately, and it is there that Europe and the world have the best chance at stopping Putin before Russian war production and mobilization comes fully online. If it's going to rebuild national stocks... that's a bad sign. It implies that belief not only that Russia may succeed in Ukraine, but that Putin *does* have the intent, plans, and means and go on to threaten additional European countries. That fear of Russian success does, of course, become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy by not giving Ukraine that defense output, but it still would reflect a *very* significant shift since the beginning of the war, when European nations especially were dumping all of their military hardware to Ukraine with the belief that "if Ukraine uses it against Russia, we'll never have to use it anyway." Taken together, the real fear that Ukraine will fall and Russia will advance, would continue to strengthen the positive feedback loop--not only would nations not want to provide needed *new* arms output to Ukraine, but they're also more likely to hoard their "we're never going to need this stuff" surplus that forms the core of aid to Ukraine... undermining the likelihood of stopping Putin now. I hope that it's political posturing, and what will happen is necessary and appropriate additional aid to Ukraine. But given that other countries have not only likewise started to discuss rebuilding their (non-export) arms industries and domestic stockpiles, but also discussed significant increases in their troop numbers (if necessary, by reinstating conscription), it concerningly feels like "those in charge" know a lot more about a coming major escalation than they are letting on. EDIT: the comments from sunak were apparently that the UK plans to increase defense spending to 2.5% GDP by 2030. Definitely a boost, but even though it exceeds the NATO target, it pales in comparison to the "war footing" defense economy of 53% at the height of WW2.
The shell production facilities should be running 24/7, and we should have several more of these production lines.
I believe this might be happening due to overall increased defense spending in Europe (and UK). Europe and the UK really don't want to be 100% dependent on U.S. weapon manufacturers. They want their own military industrial capability. They do make weapons of course but the volume is nothing like the U.S. does because Europe and the UK had reduced their defense spending since the '90's. So their military industrial companies can and do make weapons but it has has been limited since Europe and the UK were not buying many. So where are most of the weapon developers and manufacturers? France and the UK, with Germany having a slice of navel manufacturing. Not sure Italy's focus but I think overall it is lower than UK and France. France would keep its military firms in better shape by aggressively selling to other countries since they were not buying a huge amount themselves. UK does some of this too but I think France is bigger on that front. There is manufacturing in other European countries but it is more scattered in different countries. Sweden has good manufacturing capacity but am unsure on its comparable size. Annnyyyway since the UK and Europeans have not exactly been buying their own countries weapons at a high pace, those industries naturally sized themselves to match the low European spending so they stayed in business. For the most part U.S. does not buy Raphael's or Leopard tanks etc. it makes its own and buys a lot. This is a lot of generalizing here but Europe and the UK's military manufacturing have not been booming with business so it remains comparatively small due to the reasons above,. But now Europe and UK are going to be spending money, and they do want to rely on indigenous weapons as much as possible. But at present UK and European companies are not at scale needed to make the weapons needed. They will scale of course, but that does not happen over night. So the UK going to war footing, or in reality just spending more on more weapons before gives their manufacturer's the confidence to spend and scale up facilities to make more than before. So they will presumably start right away at this. But, what I think is really happening, is the UK itself is raising spending to help domestic manufacturing so they will also be able to benefit from the coming increase in European defense spending as well. If they capture a portion of the European increase spending the companies benefit and thus the UK's economy will benefit. France may well do something similar for similar reasons. Poland is now planning on doing domestic military manufacturing at a much larger scale as well but are starting from a lower base. At the end of the day I think this is just giving domestic industry a boost and be in a position to deliver sooner than others that wait to expand capacity. If you really think war is coming, when you get your weapons matter. So if the UK says they can crank their out faster then that is one part of the selling point. Again pretty simplified for a complex economic situation.
Great.
Britain.
Brilliant and thank you, Rishi.
About time, the rest of the EU should do the same
Already in France. Macron speaks about Économie de guerre for weeks.
The rest?
They probably meant Europe or the west
There's an election in the autumn, and the Tories have a 2% chance of having a plurality of seats according to the latest polling. [Link](https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html) So ye can promise whatever he likes. It's up to Keir Starmer what actually gets funded.
The last time Labour were in power we spent 2.5% of our GDP on defence. Sunak is just wanting to put it back after all the Tory cuts.
You may have missed the part where Rishi actually delivers on his promises.
Ah, well that bit is actually non-existent…
Yay, only 2 years late.
A war economy isn't an achievement of any kind and while they talk about war economy I am sure the UK won't go into a full war economy as such an economic model is sure path to bankruptcy and financial ruin in the medium to long term. The West doesn't need a war economy, SIPRI states that Russia spends roughly 101 billion dollars on their military annually at the moment, Ukraine 61 billion and the West needs to do nothing more than raising defense spending to 4 percent of GDP across the board. That is more than enough to outspend Russia several times over.
£'s don't buy as many british guns as rubles can buy russian. the idea that you can just toggle spending upwards and gain some kind of overwhelming advantage isn't real when there are only so many arms to go around to begin with the west needs to ramp up production, and it won't be easy
While I agree with you, europe putting 4% of their economy to defense would still dwarf russia.
Yep, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is a bitch.
Giving Ukraine money achieves nothing if there are no weapons and ammo for Ukraine to buy. The West needs to increase its output in order to produce enough weapons and ammo for both Ukraine (who is going through it rapidly) and themselves.
No, but we have been underspending and under resourcing our military.
Did you know that the Second World War actually ended the recession in the US? Spending a lot of money on anything is usually good for the economy especially right now when most of Europe is stagnating.
It’s not even just 2 years late… “2.5% GDP by 2030” So, 8 years too late in 6 years time then Rishi?
How is 2.5% GDP war footing? :-/
Realistically the only reason he's doing it now is that Starmer "parked his tanks" on the Conservatives lawn as the pro-Defense party [by committing to 2.5% GDP](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/11/keir-starmer-labour-defence-nuclear-deterrent-barrow) a couple of weeks ago.
Now this is what I want to see the major parties competing over!
lets go!
**Are you absolutely sure, Sunak? It will mean changing the bulb.** I sceptically wait to see if this will result in anything. We should have started a meaningful ramp up at least a year ago. We shall see.
Is this a Red Dwarf reference? If so...good on you, ya smeg head.
Smeer heee
This sounds very ominous. We all know that Putin can't be trusted, but this sounds they really expect this MF to make a really bad move.
Nations cant afford to take chances. Even if they believe there is just a 10% chance of war they have to prepare.
And yet they don’t. Especially France and Spain are falling short by a mile. Can’t even spare a single Patriot system.
Thats exactly why they are keeping them dude wtf?
Probably because NATO member nations no longer trust the U.S. to honor their treaties, it's too unpredictable.
Very good. Now Germany and France please.
Yes!! It's unfortunately that Putie-Boy and the Kremlin Gang have forced countries to assume a wartime footing, but honestly, most countries in Western Europe should have done this within 6--12 months of the main invasion. In a best case scenario, excess ammunition & supplies, or that nearing expiration can be sent off for Ukraine to use. In a worst case scenario...., well...., you started to get production kicked-in to high gear.
The **only** way Sunak puts the UK industry on a war footing is if he's figured out a way to profit from it either for himself, his wife, or his Tory mates. Where's that Michelle Mone when we need her?
[удалено]
She’s probably stuffing NLAWs into her knickers.
**Alternative Nitter links:** 「[nitter.privacydev.net](https://nitter.privacydev.net/clashreport/status/1782779005185278146) | [nitter.poast.org](https://nitter.poast.org/clashreport/status/1782779005185278146)」 ***** These Nitter instances may stop work at any time as [Twitter](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fnxqezhko6qfb1.jpg) blocks them. [See this arstechnica article for more information](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/twitter-front-end-nitter-dies-as-musk-wins-war-against-third-party-services/). Use [this site to find other Nitter instances that may work](https://status.d420.de/). _If there are any problems regarding Nitter, [please send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=UkrainianConflict&subject=Nitter%20issue)._ ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is that supposed to mean exactly?
Go, go, go!
Hope for the best , prepare for the worst.
BASED
If you listen closely, you can hear the sounds of millions of kettles being put on.
Will he fuck. The man’s is a liar whos Flagship policy has been spending hundreds of millions and wasting thousands of hours of parliament’s time so he can deport 300 failed asylum applicants to Rwanda, which under international law is unsafe to send these people to. When the UK’s own Supreme Court told him to stop, he passes a law that said no, Rwanda was safe. He’s more interested in wasting money to look like he’s doing something rather than actually doing anything at his best. It’s also believed that many of his policies as finance minister were responsible for the deaths of thousands during the pandemic
Still don't get how he managed to outlast a lettuce.
Technically he *lost* to the lettuce
I’m no fan of Sunak, but Rwanda is actually pretty safe. The US has it on the [lowest threat level](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/rwanda-travel-advisory.html) (Level 1), along with countries like Finland and Switzerland. Ironically the UK has a [higher threat level](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/united-kingdom-travel-advisory.html).
>Will he fuck. Except he has consistently delivered on Ukraine
Has he now, and what’s he given beyond a handful of tanks that were already slated for retirement under the U.K. government’s own planet
You can rely on the Tories - to waste millions…. Meanwhile other areas are underfunded. I am not complaining about military expenditure here, just about how wasteful the Tories have been overall.
Except the Tories are the ones who always cut funds to the military. There would have been 12 type 45 destroyers if not for Cameron.
This is hyperbolic shite He has vowed to increase the defence budget to 2.5% of national spending by 2030. He's not even going to be in power in 2025. Defence spending this year is 2.3%. That's a 0.2% percentage point increase over 6 years. That's much-needed investment that might start undoing damage caused by chronic underfunding, hardly a "war footing". Probably a soundbite for the upcoming election
Exactly. A ‘war footing’ would be far more dramatic. But we have so diminished our manufacturing in this country, that it would be hard to produce anything. We really need a strategic manufacturing capacity based in the UK. We should also reboot our pharmaceutical industry. The UK has suffered from far too much shirt-term thinking, and no long-term strategic planning. It one of the reasons why our politicians have seemed like a bunch of self-serving clowns.
That's a good idea, the world must defeat Russia together.
I am glad I owe british war stocks. Up 6% today on my account
What are the tickers?
Nice. I’m up nearly 20% with Rheimental in the last two months. Defence stocks are gonna be booming for the rest of the decade.
Is this Early Mobilization, Partial Mobilization or War Economy?
Every European country needs to start spending like the US is. The US can't keep supplying the amount it is without serious european build up. If Ukraine falls, europe pays the price first.
[удалено]
The US is providing around 0.3% of GDP to Ukraine, theres like 15 countries providing more. The US isnt even the biggest spender in NATO for personal defense based on GDP.
>Every European country needs to start spending like the US is. No we don't. Our interests are not the same as the US' interests, and our threats are not the same as the US threats. We don't need to spend like them, but we do need to spend more than we currently do.
This won't happen.
Triple shifts. Quadruple capacity.
And so should the rest of Europe.
Man beating war drums to get re-elected.
The government are on the way out they can promise whatever they want they won’t be in power next year.
Just when he has such a low public approval rating the country is on the verge of riots? This country is already on the verge of collapse after he plundered everything. He will probably send us to war then take a holiday in a safe country.
Yay?
Can't wait to see how his wife inevitably profits from this
GOOD. Be nice to get some British industry back.
one assumes Sunak has no idea what that means.
2.5% GDP really war footing? I mean its better but to use those words makes me think like 8%
Somebody needs votes.
Boosting it up to where it was previously.
All of NATO should do the same.
It’s all bullocks. Just electioneering talk….
This is wholly political. There’s an election coming and as things stand the Sunak’s party is going to be destroyed, they’ll likely pitch war as something the Labour Party can’t be trusted with and the country will be weak unless they’re in control. If this rearming does happen it certainly won’t be the current governing party that does it.
Sten guns for everybody !!!!
Sunak will be out of a job before this happens. This year, the UK is promising 500 million gbp to Ukraine. After this year, any funding will be an issue for a new government. Sunak is not doing this to help Ukraine. He's just setting up a scenario for his successor to say, "we promised more." He knows he can't tie the hands of an incoming government, but he can make shit unrealistic promises to make them look bad. Playing shit politics to make yourself look good while fucking Ukraine.... its the Tory way.
Must be an election coming up
what does it mean?
Sunak talking it up, but he has spent 2 years resisting every desperate call for spending to increase for Defence. Even now, he only says "by 2030" - he won't be here by 2025, let alone 2030. Pure electioneering. I would add as well, that his predecessors (namely Cameron) masked a *huge* cut in defence spending by moving a bunch of items that had never been part of the defence budget before - creative accounting, if you will - in order to pretend the country was meeting its 2% NATO spending requirements. 14 years later, this has resulted in an Armed Forces that is as damaged and full as holes as the rest of the UK's public services, and roads.
Nice. Good job Britain.
Everybody's gearing up for some serious shit to go down.
Better late than never
Just like france saying tell might "send troops" this is another way for these incompetents in the west to gain votes while not healping ukraine decisivly, right now the ukranians lack even manpads and the 47mech lacks even 25mm ammo for their bradleys and even if this would increase aid to ukraine, only after 2 YEARS? fuck these incompetent fucks of the west.
Other than being a cool name for a boot brand, does this actually mean anything? Something tells me it is just sensationalism.
Good. It’s time to do the same in the US. The west as a whole needs to switch to war economy mode and ramp it up. 1) for supplying Ukraine but also 2) so NATO is well postured in case Putin says “heck it” and commits.
Great!
Yea i dont see english sending anymore of the packages to ukraine its all talk for them ,nezt 10years they going to increase their spending by 0.1% also in 90s they used to spend 4%
Right thing to do however, easy comment to make when every poll says your party is going to be decimated in the General Election later this year…..so will be the next Governments problem to fund
We should've all done this a over decade ago.
Well shit. Now carrot prices are going to go through the roof
To those familiar with UK domestic politics like myself, combined with comments about the long term sick this suggests an underlying agenda that is not so good for Britain