Naveed Naz wrote:
> I think if we took the money the military uses for research and made
> civilian use the *primary* focus then I believe we could achieve so
> much more.
Naveed, you are a perceptive observer (in my humble opinion).
Any fan of Wiki aught to take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism
Also, along those lines, there is a helpful site at
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/specials/image0608big/cwfig1_large_html
But I have to attach a clear warning about this one: there is the graph
that shows military spending and how it relates to the US economy and
the left side makes sense, BUT NOTICE ONE THING: on the right side of
the graph we see the Reagan years, 1980 - 88, when military spending
was so high that they put a giant national debt counter in New York's
Times Square. But the graph shows a REDUCTION in military spending.
Ditto for the Dubya years: a reduction. We KNOW that to be false.
So - keep in mind the source and possible motives, and make up your own
mind.
The central question is this: Is it not true that the US is "rich"
because their main industry, war, is extremely profitable?
I am going to try to attach the graph - and hope it goes through
Walt
|