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 most would say it helps 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.
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 most would say it helps 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.