83
Poland's President Calls on NATO Allies to Raise Spending on Defense to 3% of GDP
(www.military.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
83 points (97.7% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
3 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it would be more transparent to talk about military spending as a percentage of national income. Using GDP seems like a good way to make the cost to tax payers seem smaller.
It is much fairer to use GDP.
If a nation chooses to have lots of social programs the government would need to have a higher income. This would result in higher NATO spending target. A nation that doesn't spend on social programmes would likely have a smaller government income and a reduced NATO commitment.
Additionally how the nations government works may have an effect. If a nation has lots of smaller local authorities that raise their own money and spend it themselves (like US states) then the federal/sovereign government would have a smaller income. An income that doesn't really match the nations governments spending.
GDP solves this and makes it agnostic to government structure and policies. The stronger your economy the bigger the commitment you make. Countries with less GDP per person tend to have lower labour costs. So manufacturing and military wages scale well relative to the countries population.