ך International Comparisons of Military Spending. I found the good SIPRI site in Sweden that has data on military spending. By the PPP figures, the USA is top with 335 billion dollars per year, then China at 142, then India at 66, and Russia only fourth, at 55. India ahead of Russia? Yes, it's possible, because labor is cheap in India, and these figures, I think, treat an Indian soldier as being as big an expenditure as a Russian soldier, even if he is paid less. India spends only 2.5% of GDP on the military, and Russia spends 3.8%, though.

USA 335.7
China 142.9
India 66.5
Russia 55.4
France 36.8
UK 34.0
Japan 32.8
Germany 31.0
Italy 26.9
South Korea 24.3
Turkey 23.0
Brazil 22.8
Iran 20.2
Pakistan 14.2

Why, in light of this, would the US have trouble fighting China, India, Russia, France, and the UK simultaneously, at current expenditure levels? This shows, perhaps, that we do not spend our money effectively. It also suggests to me that our military spending is far too high. Couldn't we cut it in half?

Note, too, that the Axis of Weasels countries shouldn't really count for much of anything in world diplomacy. France and Germany together should have about the same world influence as India, or as the combination of South Korea, Turkey and Brazil. But those four, you say, are just regional powers? I'd correct you and say, "those six are regional powers".

The site has a pretty good discussion of the problem of comparing expenditures in different currencies and locations:

International comparisons of military expenditure made by use of MERs tend to understate the purchasing power of the military budgets of developing countries and countries in transition, because MERs are formed on the world market and in these countries a relatively large part of the domestic economy is not exposed to international competition. On the other hand, the use of PPP rates, based on price comparisons across the whole economy (GDP-based PPPs), may exaggerate the military purchasing power of military expenditure. One reason for this is that overall price comparisons do not account for the level of technology that may be purchased with Western, and especially US, military expenditure, which is beyond the capacity of countries such as China or India. However, for the purpose of measuring the civilian resources forgone by allocating government expenditure to the military sector, PPP-converted military expenditure figures are the more relevant indicator.

I need to think for minute before understanding the "may exaggerate the military purchasing power..." sentences in the middle. I think what it means is this: the military budget of India has tremendous buying power when it comes to buying local goods and labor in India, and that is reflected in the PPP numbers. But if the Indian army decided to switch and becomes a small high-tech army like Saudi Arabia's, suddenly it's big PPP expenditure would shrink drastically, because it would be paying the same high world prices for jets and missiles as other countries do. [ http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/04.02.09c.htm . Erasmusen@yahoo.com. ]

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.