All I know, is that any whole number is probably more that what is currently spent, and any amount would make a significant difference.
at least 3 percent
… I dunno, keep pouring and I’ll say when
deleted by creator
Not including Military & Co. , 5 to 7 percent seems reasonable considering innovative tech companies spend triple that.
I just wish no corruption
deleted by creator
This is a lot of money, but I like it. Especially if it’s aimed at improving our lives through equity, inclusion, and sustainable growth.
Lets say 10 people in an economy (maybe in reality this could be 1 person = 10 million person-years, so a country with 100 million working ppl):
- 5 on consumer goods
- 3 on social services
- 1 on research & development
- 1 on defense
10% on defense spending? That’s insanely high. Even the US only spends 3.2% of GDP directly on “defense”.
A Swiss like preparation for guerilla warfare that pretty much makes an invasion impossible (but no attack capabilities) is really cheap and much preferable.
P.S.: And you forgot about primary production ;)
A peripheral economies must push the bar and get a higher percentage. But as the economy grows, the percentage can go down a little, as the absolute value is already big. But the real question is “What R&D?”. A low budget on public health is preferable to a high on mining industry for a poor country.
I am not an economist or whatever how should I know.
well its your money
the question is ill-posed.
Huh. I’m sure you have good reasons, and I’m curious. Why do you think so?
- in my country tax is a way for the government to rob it’s citizens. the less paid the better.
- government is bad at supervising research, unless you have a specialised agency like DARPA, therefore see 3.
- it depends more on human resources than the amount of money you spend on it. give 50% GDP to a bunch of civil servants with 60% of them havong unfinished primary school education they will spend half of it on drying a local river. the other half will be cleaned by that very same river.
