Talk:Guns versus butter model

A few concerns
I have a few concerns with this one:
 * 1) The external link, which is the only citation, appears to be a Harvard student's summary notes on a book by Robert Powell. That is not exactly a great source.
 * 2) Is the claim that "Guns versus butter model" is an established phrase? Certainly "Guns and butter" is, but "Guns versus butter model"?
 * 3) "Guns and butter" is a phrase heavily associated with 1960s U.S. politics. I'd be interested to know how much currency it had in other times and places. The policies of the Johnson administration would seem to be a challenge to the thesis implicitly advanced by this article as it stands: Johnson increased spending on both "guns" and "butter", and there isn't much indication of a "peace dividend" after the Vietnam War. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I've sourced your first citation reference. The second is related to standard Macro-growth theory, the guns/butter model is based on a stagnant economyGDP is based on consumption + investment/savings + government spending + net exports.......if GDP is going up, government spending can also go up without having any sort of affect on "butter" for the civilians (which, in a free market democracy, the government typically is not providing anyway).

This stuff is standard, accepted Macro, but there's no good way to cite it without basically citing the first 10 chapters of some intermediate Macro textbook. Thoughts? --Shootermcgavin7 03:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Citing a book and a range of pages, passim, is not the greatest citation, but it beats nothing. - Jmabel | Talk 22:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Also - I have no idea who came up with the "peace dividend" garbage at the bottom, but it is pseudo-economic rubbish and probably shouldn't be in the article Shootermcgavin7 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to take it a little further - the entry references the Production Possibility Frontier, which refernces the decision making process between production of goods. In a free-market democracy, these decisions are typically made by businesses, in a state-run economy they're typically made by a central government (who also makes the decision on military spending).--Shootermcgavin7 03:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What does democracy have to do with it? The relevance of free markets is obvious, but (for example) a relatively free-market but generally undemocratic state (China leaps to mind) would presumably face the same as any other free-market economy. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 22:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed democracy to economies for the sake of argument - although I still wouldn't classify the PRC as free market regardless of the handful of reforms. Shootermcgavin7 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to question: what does a free market vs. a planned market have to do with ANYTHING in this model? It's a simple example of the production possibilities frontier. It assumes that one resource can be used to make two products, with diminishing returns to scale. I don't see where market theory comes in at all. Staypuft9 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have heard Ron Paul, 2008 Republican Candidate, mention "Guns and Butter" on numerous occasions (debates, campaigning, and T.V. interviews) regarding the current administration's Neo-Conservative "nation building" wars, such as in Iraq and the fiscal irresponsibility of borrowing money from China.--Thye0001 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes
Do we know the exact date of the "Summer" Herman Goering statment? Drutt 04:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A Nation Has to Choose Between Two Options
The use of the word "nation" kinda rubs me the wrong way. Voters have a vanishingly small say on whether a nation chooses between guns or butter. And it's certainly not the market that chooses between guns or butter. It's the public sector...it's a command economy...it's congress/parliament...it's the president...it's government planners...it's the government.

Nearly 1000 years ago some barons took the power of the purse from the king because they were fed up with him spending their taxes on wars. Prior to the Magna Carta would we say it's a nation that chooses between guns and butter or would we say that it's the king that chooses between guns and butter? What about North Korea? Would we say that North Koreans choose between guns and butter or would we say that their dictator chooses between guns and butter?

Therefore, I think we're better off replacing "nation" with "government". --Xerographica (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The choice itself is a false dilemma. Is anyone the least surprised to find government officials pushing fallacious policies? This should also be discussed. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Gostaria de saber se é viável traduzir este artigo e este. Att. 187.20.114.75 (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)