They have no clue who this guy is. As for Tulsi, she was a sitting congress woman for eight years., and I believe she is still a Lt Colonel in the US Army Reserve. Sorry my friend she is in a little bit better position to comment on the MIC
Actually, she isn't. She's compromised. Washed away all of her credibility by being a politician. And suggesting Ukraine should just be abandoned.
PS... being a Vet doesn't make you infallible or correct. It doesn't even make you a good person. For instance Ret Col Douglas MacGregor. For God's sake... Lindsey Graham was a Colonel!
She has lost credibility with you. She is highly respected In this country.
NOBODY has a monopoly on the truth.
As I am American Army vet, you are correct about one thing. It doesn't automatically make you a good person. Or that you know what the F you are talking about. Mr McBeth made a lazy and poor argument in his video. He demonstrated that he doesn't understand what Ike was talking about. And MacGregor unlike McBeth, does not believe his own BS.
Senator Graham has been vary supportive of Ukraine, and Tulsi is still an Army reserve officer. If she is compromised why dose the Army tolerate that?
Well he said Tulsi is compromised by being a politician. Army can’t really control that. I like Tulsi, I just don’t agree with her on Ukraine. Senator Graham is on both sides of the Ukraine issue and will pander to whomever his audience is. I have no respect for him. I would ask how you know MacGregor doesn’t believe his own BS? If that is true then not only is he a Russian disinformation actor but someone who will apparently do anything for a buck….scum. But yes there is no monopoly on truth and you may not like Ryan’s argument. I don’t know of anyone else currently arguing this opinion so it has to start somewhere.
This should be sent to all the isolationist politicians and media types who keep squawking about “endless wars! Neocons!” (looking at you, JD Vance, Rand Paul, and oh yes — Tucker Carlson).
I for one want more politicians to "squawk" against endless wars. 20 years of GWOT (Global War On Terror) which didn't exactly end favorably, has some questioning how much we should involve ourselves in world conflicts.
We may not want conflicts but the whole world ecosystem is balanced by the threat of US military force. The results of stepping back and saying we are not willing to protect the current order has predictable results, wars and conflicts of increasing severity. There’s a reason why we won the Cold War and have been able to piggy back on 70 years of prosperity. It was only because people were afraid of us.
Truth, I’ve blown a few heads by sharing your analogy. Truth is we need one to compete a drive down costs. Only example that comes to mind is small arms, personal weapons. Colt FN DD LMT Sig keeping some systems costs down. Thats because of civilian markets though. Solution? Sell m1a2 tanks to hobbiests, collectors? I’d be down but I’d have to upgrade my job and my county bridge infrastructure.
So many things wrong with your video. Let’s start off with what Ike warned about. He wasn’t arguing against defense spending he was asking us to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought.” In other words, watch out for someone trying to sell you something you don’t need.
Yet as recent as 2015 the Pentagon was asking congress to stop buying equipment it did not need.
In terms of justifying a product be built in almost every state, is just plan nuts. You produce stuff based on advantages you might have both in terms of resources, and manufacturing. It’s hard to believe that some Midwest or rust belt states have an advantage over states like California, Texas in terms of production or technical expertise. Also from a logistic standpoint you wouldn’t send resources to multiple locations just to send them again to another place for assembly. While sometimes it’s unavoidable, you would try to minimize it as much as possible, if only to control quality.
Also, it’s apples to oranges comparing PG to Boeing. For one thing, the majority of revenue for PG doesn’t come from tax payers. It comes from people paying for goods they want.
I’m a bit disappointed in your last statement where you imply that people who bring up military spending are somehow trying to help our advisories.
Being a vet myself who also worked in finance for over 20yrs, all Im questioning is the large amount of waste that happens. I rather have that money go to help vets or get more help to Ukraine.
One can make a rather good argument against consolidating in high population states. Yes, you can get economies of scale BUT you'll pay for higher cost of living, less national unity ( why would a state want to fund something that has nothing to do with it? ), more state regulatory issues ( do you think CA has more or less regulations than South Dakota? ), etc. In general, it's healthier to have a diversified system than a consolidated one. Not to say I don't have issues with some things that were said, but I don't disagree with what Ryan is getting at (though I will say there needs to be a part 2 to this).
Not all russians are created equal! Yours very russian has got his green card (and then the US citizenship) by building back (better) that Philadelphia ship yard. In particular a repair facility for Ohio class subs turbines. Along with about 20 other investors, who were mainly Chinese, lol.
Gee whiz, I guess that the $850B military budget which constitutes the largest discretionary share of the Federal Budget, isn't really indicative of anything??? No smoke from the fire, here!
Before I became involved in the design and construction of healthcare facilities in California, I was involved in the design and construction of several military-related facilities. I encountered numerous instances of former high-ranking military personnel being hired by big defense contractors. I also encountered several instances where the military and the big defense contractors scratched each others' backs to cover up embarrassing mistakes which cost the taxpayers plenty.
The Military-Industrial Complex still exists. It is no mere coincidence that the immoral, unethical proxy war in Ukraine (which the US could have easily prevented prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine) continues unabated.
It's slightly dishonest to call the military budget 'the largest discretionary share of the federal budget'. I have seen this stat thrown around a lot, and it's done in a way to mislead people. Social Security is the biggest part of the total federal budget. Medicaid is the second highest. The military is the third highest. The reason people talk about the "discretionary budget" is to make the military look like a larger percentage of the budget (~50% of discretionary) when it in fact the military is ~18% of the total budget.
I live in Seattle, I work in academia, I am surrounded by voices echoing anti-American sentiment. This morning someone told me that he feels 'traumatized' whenever he sees the American flag. I can't help but feel like that sentiment, and the constant stream of these voices, are influenced by bad actors. Thank you, we need more Ryan McBeth's in this world.
This was eye opening. While I think I agree the MIC is not the behemoth it is claimed to be, it is used to line the pockets of the politicians who both support and attack it. This corruption is not anything new but the military is the biggest non entitlement program and can be abused the most. The politicians make it their piggy bank.
When I think MIC, I generally lean towards the politicians who corrupt the process. What comes to mind for me at least is the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). That ship type is inadequate in terms of armor, armament and reliability. Several of them have already been decommissioned even though several were new or nearly new. All of the Freedom-class IIRC. The Navy has wasted billions on this ship type and as I understand it, though I may be wrong, it was Congress Critters who kept the program going as it's jobs in their States. The Independence class LCS is still active though but I'm not sure what use they're getting. I haven't even heard of their being used off Yemen. Maybe they can at least be used for pirate interdiction off Somalia or intercepting drug runners off Florida. With the Ticonderoga class cruisers also being decommissioned, fleet defense is pretty much entirely falling on the Burke class destroyers it seems as the new Constellation class frigates is also experiencing delays. At least the Burke class is a proven success. God forbid the SHTF with China over Taiwan, we're gonna need every last one of those tough Tin Cans.
Another example of where people would sometimes throw the MIC term is the F-35 program. Yeah, there were serious delays and cost overruns at first but that program I think is slowly but surely winning over skeptics. I call the F-35 a information superiority platform instead of a performance superiority platform. See first, shoot first, kill first. Though I was a skeptic at first of that plane, I think it's a war winner now.
You made very compelling arguments Ryan though I was initially very skeptical of someone who operates within the MIC world, even as a subcontractor then saying the MIC doesn't exist. It's sort along the lines of a govt agency investigating themselves and finding nothing wrong. But again, you made good points that swayed me. Again, I attribute the MIC term more to the politicians than the actual military industry.
Also. when people talk about the MIC today, it's often in reference to the Ukraine-Russia conflict which I think is what Tulsi Gabbard was referring to in the clip. The conclusion some come to is that we're only giving Ukraine enough to prolong the war, not to win it. The longer it goes on, the longer the profits mount as we build replacements for the older stuff we sent. Just because it's not near as big as the civilian product market doesn't mean there's not money to be made by someone. But again, this is on the politicians as it's not the MIC who makes the call on what to send and how much.
Thanks for this. Have had rabid libertarian friends who rail about the issue every election and this report with numbers quells their bullshit rants via Ron Paul, Rand Paul these days.
Ike was concerned about influence through lobbying. Attached are the top ten lobbying entities in the US. None are defense contractors. On the list is Big Pharma, hospitals, the AMA, Blue Cross, Amazon, Meta, and the wireless phone industry. US military readiness is being sold down the river so hospital administrators can make a handsome profit. The markup on military aircraft parts is nothing compared to a Tylenol tablet in a hospital.
The majority of the pentagon’s budget is pay and benefits for troops and personnel. That number is around 60% or more. Purchases of military hardware is 25% of less of the budget. It would be interesting to see the difference of spending on military equipment from 1960 to 2022.
Also remember that today’s military is all volunteer, which means higher pay than an army that is drafted.
Overall defense spending is not the correct metric to analyze the power of the MIC.
You are probably right James, when you say "Overall defense spending is not the correct metric..." and, to be fair to Mr. McBeth, that was just one pillar of his various arguments.
Perhaps the stronger ones were his highlighting of the relatively small financial rewards achieved.
I suspect we need an economist to really dig down, does that include VA spending? Idk I remember when my grandparents would give me quarter to buy a snickers. They thought candy bars were 5 and dime at the local Woolworth’s or Roses still. I never did say that well Grammy, a snickers is 69cents now. Back then we also had a gold standard, my job says that a 4% raise exceeded annual inflation. I feel more like real inflation the past few years was closer to 8% but idk. There is no doubt that money got your more back in 1960 than 10 does now. It’s definitely worth a real look but this isn’t an economic channel.
Oh, an in reply to your question "does that include VA spending"...when I click the 1st link it says (along with a bunch of other things)...
Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country).
Well the VA budget is sure to account a large slice of funds. My grandads/uncles refused to use services of the VA as they were too proud type despite being war disabled. They considered such things a handout that should only go to people without means/family. Not a popular topic but Russia China treat their vets like shit and dodge the lifetime care thing pretty quick.
I think what I was trying to say, is that the original argument (The Industrial Military Complex does not really exist) is flawed because one of the foundations upon which Ryan McBeth built his argument was that Defense spending has gone from about 11% GDP in 1950's to less than 4% today but, he did not account for inflation.
It was this bit in his video (link should take you 18 minutes in) https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?si=vzynAWBmZfhhvFB1&t=1084 that caused my confusion. He's comparing 9.2% of 1961 GDP with 3.4% of 2024 GDP and no account for inflation has been made. Well clearly GDP in 1961 was much less than it is today, so 9% of a small number could be less than 3% of a big number...and it is (in real terms) according to my figures above. And that's why I am confused, because I cannot believe Ryan missed this.
Purchasing power parity would be the best way to evaluate gdp then now, I’m only knowledgeable on economics through the osmosis of living with one, in other words I’m outside my lane here. I bet we would need to spend 30% or our gdp to produce 50-60’s era numbers. I mean we fielded thousands of new bombers etc.
I totally agree "purchasing power parity would be the best way", and the 2nd link I included is a US inflation calculator that, according to the text on the website does this "The U.S. Inflation Calculator measures the dollar's buying power over time"...
The example they give is:-
If in 1913 I purchased an item for $1.00 then in 2024 that same item would cost: $31.67
This is why I paid to be a member of Ryan's Substack. I learned so much from his presentation and I've had to reassess my assumptions.
Well done Ryan, keep the content coming.
You've made Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbard, Breaking Points, RFK jr, Elon Musk, Lex Friedman, Glenn Greenwald, et al very very sad today.
They have no clue who this guy is. As for Tulsi, she was a sitting congress woman for eight years., and I believe she is still a Lt Colonel in the US Army Reserve. Sorry my friend she is in a little bit better position to comment on the MIC
Actually, she isn't. She's compromised. Washed away all of her credibility by being a politician. And suggesting Ukraine should just be abandoned.
PS... being a Vet doesn't make you infallible or correct. It doesn't even make you a good person. For instance Ret Col Douglas MacGregor. For God's sake... Lindsey Graham was a Colonel!
She has lost credibility with you. She is highly respected In this country.
NOBODY has a monopoly on the truth.
As I am American Army vet, you are correct about one thing. It doesn't automatically make you a good person. Or that you know what the F you are talking about. Mr McBeth made a lazy and poor argument in his video. He demonstrated that he doesn't understand what Ike was talking about. And MacGregor unlike McBeth, does not believe his own BS.
Senator Graham has been vary supportive of Ukraine, and Tulsi is still an Army reserve officer. If she is compromised why dose the Army tolerate that?
Well he said Tulsi is compromised by being a politician. Army can’t really control that. I like Tulsi, I just don’t agree with her on Ukraine. Senator Graham is on both sides of the Ukraine issue and will pander to whomever his audience is. I have no respect for him. I would ask how you know MacGregor doesn’t believe his own BS? If that is true then not only is he a Russian disinformation actor but someone who will apparently do anything for a buck….scum. But yes there is no monopoly on truth and you may not like Ryan’s argument. I don’t know of anyone else currently arguing this opinion so it has to start somewhere.
This should be sent to all the isolationist politicians and media types who keep squawking about “endless wars! Neocons!” (looking at you, JD Vance, Rand Paul, and oh yes — Tucker Carlson).
Excellent compilation!
JD Vance…. What a fkn tool
I for one want more politicians to "squawk" against endless wars. 20 years of GWOT (Global War On Terror) which didn't exactly end favorably, has some questioning how much we should involve ourselves in world conflicts.
We may not want conflicts but the whole world ecosystem is balanced by the threat of US military force. The results of stepping back and saying we are not willing to protect the current order has predictable results, wars and conflicts of increasing severity. There’s a reason why we won the Cold War and have been able to piggy back on 70 years of prosperity. It was only because people were afraid of us.
Truth, I’ve blown a few heads by sharing your analogy. Truth is we need one to compete a drive down costs. Only example that comes to mind is small arms, personal weapons. Colt FN DD LMT Sig keeping some systems costs down. Thats because of civilian markets though. Solution? Sell m1a2 tanks to hobbiests, collectors? I’d be down but I’d have to upgrade my job and my county bridge infrastructure.
So many things wrong with your video. Let’s start off with what Ike warned about. He wasn’t arguing against defense spending he was asking us to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought.” In other words, watch out for someone trying to sell you something you don’t need.
Yet as recent as 2015 the Pentagon was asking congress to stop buying equipment it did not need.
In terms of justifying a product be built in almost every state, is just plan nuts. You produce stuff based on advantages you might have both in terms of resources, and manufacturing. It’s hard to believe that some Midwest or rust belt states have an advantage over states like California, Texas in terms of production or technical expertise. Also from a logistic standpoint you wouldn’t send resources to multiple locations just to send them again to another place for assembly. While sometimes it’s unavoidable, you would try to minimize it as much as possible, if only to control quality.
Also, it’s apples to oranges comparing PG to Boeing. For one thing, the majority of revenue for PG doesn’t come from tax payers. It comes from people paying for goods they want.
I’m a bit disappointed in your last statement where you imply that people who bring up military spending are somehow trying to help our advisories.
Being a vet myself who also worked in finance for over 20yrs, all Im questioning is the large amount of waste that happens. I rather have that money go to help vets or get more help to Ukraine.
One can make a rather good argument against consolidating in high population states. Yes, you can get economies of scale BUT you'll pay for higher cost of living, less national unity ( why would a state want to fund something that has nothing to do with it? ), more state regulatory issues ( do you think CA has more or less regulations than South Dakota? ), etc. In general, it's healthier to have a diversified system than a consolidated one. Not to say I don't have issues with some things that were said, but I don't disagree with what Ryan is getting at (though I will say there needs to be a part 2 to this).
Not all russians are created equal! Yours very russian has got his green card (and then the US citizenship) by building back (better) that Philadelphia ship yard. In particular a repair facility for Ohio class subs turbines. Along with about 20 other investors, who were mainly Chinese, lol.
Capitalism is the most powerful American weapon.
You can tell the “military-industrial complex” isn’t real because if it were you’d be able to buy a machine gun at Home Depot.
No Military-Industrial Complex - really???
Gee whiz, I guess that the $850B military budget which constitutes the largest discretionary share of the Federal Budget, isn't really indicative of anything??? No smoke from the fire, here!
Before I became involved in the design and construction of healthcare facilities in California, I was involved in the design and construction of several military-related facilities. I encountered numerous instances of former high-ranking military personnel being hired by big defense contractors. I also encountered several instances where the military and the big defense contractors scratched each others' backs to cover up embarrassing mistakes which cost the taxpayers plenty.
The Military-Industrial Complex still exists. It is no mere coincidence that the immoral, unethical proxy war in Ukraine (which the US could have easily prevented prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine) continues unabated.
It's slightly dishonest to call the military budget 'the largest discretionary share of the federal budget'. I have seen this stat thrown around a lot, and it's done in a way to mislead people. Social Security is the biggest part of the total federal budget. Medicaid is the second highest. The military is the third highest. The reason people talk about the "discretionary budget" is to make the military look like a larger percentage of the budget (~50% of discretionary) when it in fact the military is ~18% of the total budget.
I live in Seattle, I work in academia, I am surrounded by voices echoing anti-American sentiment. This morning someone told me that he feels 'traumatized' whenever he sees the American flag. I can't help but feel like that sentiment, and the constant stream of these voices, are influenced by bad actors. Thank you, we need more Ryan McBeth's in this world.
This was eye opening. While I think I agree the MIC is not the behemoth it is claimed to be, it is used to line the pockets of the politicians who both support and attack it. This corruption is not anything new but the military is the biggest non entitlement program and can be abused the most. The politicians make it their piggy bank.
When I think MIC, I generally lean towards the politicians who corrupt the process. What comes to mind for me at least is the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). That ship type is inadequate in terms of armor, armament and reliability. Several of them have already been decommissioned even though several were new or nearly new. All of the Freedom-class IIRC. The Navy has wasted billions on this ship type and as I understand it, though I may be wrong, it was Congress Critters who kept the program going as it's jobs in their States. The Independence class LCS is still active though but I'm not sure what use they're getting. I haven't even heard of their being used off Yemen. Maybe they can at least be used for pirate interdiction off Somalia or intercepting drug runners off Florida. With the Ticonderoga class cruisers also being decommissioned, fleet defense is pretty much entirely falling on the Burke class destroyers it seems as the new Constellation class frigates is also experiencing delays. At least the Burke class is a proven success. God forbid the SHTF with China over Taiwan, we're gonna need every last one of those tough Tin Cans.
Another example of where people would sometimes throw the MIC term is the F-35 program. Yeah, there were serious delays and cost overruns at first but that program I think is slowly but surely winning over skeptics. I call the F-35 a information superiority platform instead of a performance superiority platform. See first, shoot first, kill first. Though I was a skeptic at first of that plane, I think it's a war winner now.
You made very compelling arguments Ryan though I was initially very skeptical of someone who operates within the MIC world, even as a subcontractor then saying the MIC doesn't exist. It's sort along the lines of a govt agency investigating themselves and finding nothing wrong. But again, you made good points that swayed me. Again, I attribute the MIC term more to the politicians than the actual military industry.
Also. when people talk about the MIC today, it's often in reference to the Ukraine-Russia conflict which I think is what Tulsi Gabbard was referring to in the clip. The conclusion some come to is that we're only giving Ukraine enough to prolong the war, not to win it. The longer it goes on, the longer the profits mount as we build replacements for the older stuff we sent. Just because it's not near as big as the civilian product market doesn't mean there's not money to be made by someone. But again, this is on the politicians as it's not the MIC who makes the call on what to send and how much.
Everyone who disagrees with me about foreign policy is the military industrial complex. Literally Hitler
Or a Russian agent. Welcome to the Internet.
Great listening and learning right there. Glad I support you, and thanks for staying out of the political muckpile.
Thanks for this. Have had rabid libertarian friends who rail about the issue every election and this report with numbers quells their bullshit rants via Ron Paul, Rand Paul these days.
Ike was concerned about influence through lobbying. Attached are the top ten lobbying entities in the US. None are defense contractors. On the list is Big Pharma, hospitals, the AMA, Blue Cross, Amazon, Meta, and the wireless phone industry. US military readiness is being sold down the river so hospital administrators can make a handsome profit. The markup on military aircraft parts is nothing compared to a Tylenol tablet in a hospital.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/257344/top-lobbying-spenders-in-the-us/
I'm confused. According to stats from World Bank (GDP military spending) and USA inflation calculator (see links below)
1960 47.35 billion (8.99% GDP)
2022 876.94 billion (3.45% GDP)
Inflation adjusted 1960 = 468.25 billion in 2022.
That's an increase in defense spending of (876.94/468.25)=1.87 times between 1960 & 2022.
So, is that a doubling in real terms or (more likely) I have something wrong?
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
The majority of the pentagon’s budget is pay and benefits for troops and personnel. That number is around 60% or more. Purchases of military hardware is 25% of less of the budget. It would be interesting to see the difference of spending on military equipment from 1960 to 2022.
Also remember that today’s military is all volunteer, which means higher pay than an army that is drafted.
Overall defense spending is not the correct metric to analyze the power of the MIC.
You are probably right James, when you say "Overall defense spending is not the correct metric..." and, to be fair to Mr. McBeth, that was just one pillar of his various arguments.
Perhaps the stronger ones were his highlighting of the relatively small financial rewards achieved.
I suspect we need an economist to really dig down, does that include VA spending? Idk I remember when my grandparents would give me quarter to buy a snickers. They thought candy bars were 5 and dime at the local Woolworth’s or Roses still. I never did say that well Grammy, a snickers is 69cents now. Back then we also had a gold standard, my job says that a 4% raise exceeded annual inflation. I feel more like real inflation the past few years was closer to 8% but idk. There is no doubt that money got your more back in 1960 than 10 does now. It’s definitely worth a real look but this isn’t an economic channel.
Oh, an in reply to your question "does that include VA spending"...when I click the 1st link it says (along with a bunch of other things)...
Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country).
Well the VA budget is sure to account a large slice of funds. My grandads/uncles refused to use services of the VA as they were too proud type despite being war disabled. They considered such things a handout that should only go to people without means/family. Not a popular topic but Russia China treat their vets like shit and dodge the lifetime care thing pretty quick.
I think what I was trying to say, is that the original argument (The Industrial Military Complex does not really exist) is flawed because one of the foundations upon which Ryan McBeth built his argument was that Defense spending has gone from about 11% GDP in 1950's to less than 4% today but, he did not account for inflation.
But I believe his numbers were adjusted for inflation, just how real is the adjustment?
It was this bit in his video (link should take you 18 minutes in) https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?si=vzynAWBmZfhhvFB1&t=1084 that caused my confusion. He's comparing 9.2% of 1961 GDP with 3.4% of 2024 GDP and no account for inflation has been made. Well clearly GDP in 1961 was much less than it is today, so 9% of a small number could be less than 3% of a big number...and it is (in real terms) according to my figures above. And that's why I am confused, because I cannot believe Ryan missed this.
Purchasing power parity would be the best way to evaluate gdp then now, I’m only knowledgeable on economics through the osmosis of living with one, in other words I’m outside my lane here. I bet we would need to spend 30% or our gdp to produce 50-60’s era numbers. I mean we fielded thousands of new bombers etc.
I totally agree "purchasing power parity would be the best way", and the 2nd link I included is a US inflation calculator that, according to the text on the website does this "The U.S. Inflation Calculator measures the dollar's buying power over time"...
The example they give is:-
If in 1913 I purchased an item for $1.00 then in 2024 that same item would cost: $31.67
Cumulative rate of inflation: 3067.2%