william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,402
- 280
I'm getting some numbers that strike me as outrageous using the following formula:
Cost = multiplier effect (about 5) of not having that money spent over here + lease costs + (multiplier effect [about 10 due to higher savings and investment rates] of lower defense costs and added garrison expenditure for the receiving country to increase its comparative advantage relative to the US).
The problem i get is that ending the empire would seem to wipe out the national debt in about 10 years without cutting the defense budget. And without those garrisons the defense budget could be redirected to enhance reserves giving us an insanely large military of no possible use short of fighting WWIII as a conventional war. So what other formulae can be used to get different results.
Cost = multiplier effect (about 5) of not having that money spent over here + lease costs + (multiplier effect [about 10 due to higher savings and investment rates] of lower defense costs and added garrison expenditure for the receiving country to increase its comparative advantage relative to the US).
The problem i get is that ending the empire would seem to wipe out the national debt in about 10 years without cutting the defense budget. And without those garrisons the defense budget could be redirected to enhance reserves giving us an insanely large military of no possible use short of fighting WWIII as a conventional war. So what other formulae can be used to get different results.