Creates fewer jobs means less growth. Considering 1.4 billion people need jobs and social security, money spent on health and education will provide way more jobs and economic growth than on weapons. With strong economics, even military spending at 1% will give a strong army. Just look at Japan, arguably 2nd best navy in the world yet they spend 1% on military.
This is not self evident.
Is China in a position where 'arguably second best' is enough?
In the scenarios I presented, military expenditure as a percentage of GDP peaks at 3.5%, which is basically the present rate for the USA and lower than its rate for most of the past 70 years. You should also take a look at the numbers for the other countries I mentioned, for a reference.
China has been much lower than 2nd best for a long time. And until they have the same GDP per capita as a developed nation they won't need to spend more.
I don't see how the second sentence follows from anything.
What is the debt of the other countries I listed? It would be more accurate to say that most countries spend between 1% and 6% of GDP on the military.
In general it may be, but your interpretation isn't.
When I say until they got GDP per capita at developed nation, it means until they caught up as a nation in wealth. When China reach 30-40k/person then they will have the luxury of spending more on military and not invest everything on development and improving the lives of the poor.
I understood what you were saying, I just don't think you've shown it to be true.
Here is the for the five countries I brought up. USA has the highest among large countries, Singapore the highest in Asia, South Korea went through the kind of development process that China is undergoing a few decades earlier and Israel is a developed country with relatively high growth. These examples are enough to disprove claims that military spending hurts growth and development.
Going by what would accentuate the 'China threat theory' is probably the worst way for China to make decisions, because that framework was put in place by its opponents to limit China's options. Does the fact that military spending grew with the economy for the past twenty years and is much smaller than America's stop the regular 'Chinese military buildup' pieces?
Of course economic growth is fundamental. See my above post for examples of countries where high military spending doesn't hurt growth. If China goes with a 2% of GDP cap, it won't reach the USA's nominal spending before 2050, and even later for the cumulative amount.
Israel is a special case, they got enemies surrounding them. What needs to be looked at are large countries in growth mode that have high military budget. I can't really think of one. US didn't have a big budget until after WW2, by then they already had 50% of world economy.
