Circulating money does create economic value in far multiples of the initial amount. It's well established military spending has an impact on GDP far more than the amount itself.
Funds are never 'spent' as such, the money always circulates around even if you do buy metal platypuses - someone is going to get a salary and spend it somewhere or invest in their future by buying things that improve their productivity.
But a large portion of the money ends up in the F-35 itself, which is useless. Think of all the energy, all the time and brainpower used to build the platypus. Think of all the money and materials used to create something that no one wants, which could instead be used to create things that people want while still providing jobs/income. The point of an economy is to enable exchanges so that people produce things that other people need. That is the benefit of an economy; money is a medium for trading things of value for other things of value.
In this case, the trade is one-way; the F-35 is effectively a black hole. The transaction to defense workers is immensely lossy. Ultimately, the program is funded by taxpayers whose money went into building a $1.5 trillion boondoggle instead of any number of useful purposes. The unseen harm of using the public’s funds in this way far outweighs the benefits the defense industry brings. It’s the same as taking five dollars from everyone, paying people three dollars to throw two of every five dollars into a campfire, and calling it economic growth. Sure, some people get paid, but the net gain is negative. The two dollars isn’t used to create things that other people want; it is locked inside a metal platypus.
> But a large portion of the money ends up in the F-35 itself,
How does it 'end up' there? - A human being is paid in the end. This is the notion I don't believe you're accurately looking at.
Say you were to pay the cashier $100 for your groceries, s/he wouldn't end up with the money either it would go to suppliers and seep back into the economy. Money is a bit like energy to a degree it can't be destroyed it ultimately ends up being spent again and again. Unless of course it goes into a bank account that is locked and never spent - for which inflation will tax it and even that would leak back.
The F35 is deliberately built in very high deficit areas to have the largest multiplier effect- this results in extremely good stimulus spending. Just to throw some numbers out there money spent this way (even if the end product is useless) ends up increasing GDP 30-60% more than the original spend. E.g $100 spent => $130-160m. It depends on the unemployment rate in the area but it can be as high as 3x. There is hardly a government program that can be as effective unless its building infrastructure, where it can stretch to as high as 7 (read Japan roads to nowhere)
The F35 is certaintly not a black hole. Almost certainly if you look at it in the way we buy things and consume them - then yes it is, almost 100%, but in terms of the economic effects its a very helpful project. If France had for example done this type of spending it would not be sitting in economic contraction territory at the moment - wheras the US hardly sees contraction because of this type of deficit spending.
> Circulating money does create economic value in far multiples of the initial amount.
Again, that assumes the "initial amount" came from dead or poorly invested money. I have seen no rationalization or evidence that this is the case.
Consider that 37% of Federal Income Tax revenue comes from the 1%. The 1% are the most effective investors, because that's how they became the 1%. Government spending would have to be incredibly good to outdo the best investors.
Funds are never 'spent' as such, the money always circulates around even if you do buy metal platypuses - someone is going to get a salary and spend it somewhere or invest in their future by buying things that improve their productivity.