Aerospace and defense industry has a net margin of 7-8% ROI.
soft-drink industry +10%
Banking, real-estate, semiconductors, telecom all have higher rates of return than aerospace and defense.
My point is not to diminish the Danger for what profit their is in war.
The profit incentive to wage war is always there and its spread across the whole of a economy, ideally so if the decision to wage war is made.
It’s not just Lockheed Martin that profits.
It everything.
In some cases even the lives of the countries involved in the long run.
If you want to figure out an interesting return on investment. Try and determine how much taxes collected that go into infrastructure or social services or regulatory agencies
actually go into those stated goals. Or measure how those programs actually deliver on the stated purpose.
Defense is just a part of the discretionary budget. The Discretionary part of our budget is only a 1/3 to a 1/4th of the total budget.
But what is the preeminent purpose of our federal government anyway.
Defense
What’s the real growth industry here.
Healthy margins are a telling signal of a healthy business. But what’s considered a good net profit margin can vary depending on the industry, and depending on the year. In my mind, it’s difficult to understand what constitutes a good net profit margin (also called “net margin”, or “net income...
einvestingforbeginners.com
The goal is not to be rich through the military industrial complex. Rather, it's to use the complex to arm the military needed to keep the dollar used as a reserve currency propped up. That in, turn, allows for continued heavy borrowing and spending across the board, and which started back in 1982:
That's what those 800 military bases and installations worldwide are there for. They were established not to protect the U.S. from attack or even to defend other peoples from "tyranny" but to protect U.S. interests, and that means the interests of those who control the U.S. economy and fund the government: the rich.
And that's the same rich which control those soda pop, pharma, semiconductor, defense, telecomm, etc., industries.
The catch is that Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and over forty countries are economically stronger and have become less interested in engaging in multilateral deals with the U.S. involved. They are more interested in bilateral deals, if not multilateral deals among themselves, and that may mean more use of other currencies.
And that's not good for the U.S. because that also means less dependence on the dollar and the U.S. itself. Trump likely understood this, which is why he wanted to reverse military expansionism, make other countries pay for any military help, close off borders, restrict free trade, and encourage the country to become less dependent on others.
That's not a new idea because that's how Japan, China, and others became economically stronger in the first place. The catch is that the U.S. became richer for the opposite reason: it encouraged the world to use its currency as a reserve, and then exploited that by borrowing and spending heavily. Now, it has something like $70 trillion in total debts and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and has to borrow and spend more to maintain not only its economy but even its military.
With that, there's no going back: the only thing that the country has is a hammer (the military), which means everything will have to look like a nail. Hence, Trump's loss and Biden's win, which assures domination once more by the swamp.