comments

1. #1    The article's claim may be true but the 2007 study certainly does not prove the claim.
   
   There are indications in the study that increased Federal deficits cause increased interest rates which harm the economy both directly and also indirectly by keeping the dollar high which hurts the balance of trade. But we all knew that already.
   
   But the (extraordinarily weak) 2007 "study" doesn't prove anything. Not even close.
   written by Mike5000 since 15 days 20 hours 4 minutes
2. #2    Here's a quote from the study:
   
   "The decline in GDP projected for the twentieth year in the high military spending scenario is $42.1 billion. This corresponds to a projected loss of 668,100 jobs."
   
   A decline in GDP is predicted in numerous studies and, likewise, asserted by the Existentialist Cowboy. Fact is: WAR is NOT the economic stimulus that is claimed. It is, rather, a BLACK FUCKIN HOLE and results in the contraction of economy, popularly called 'depression'. Gore Vidal said that the Pentagon was an 'economic black hole!' Vidal is correct.
   
   Moreover, monies spent on the Pentagon would be more productively spent creating jobs --instead of killing folk in wars of naked agression, in fact, war crimes under US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441.
   
   Not only should the Bush gang be tried, found guilty and executed for the capital crimes they committed, the economy should be put on a PEACE TIME footing; jobs should be created if they are not there. We NEED another FDR.
   written by vaquero since 15 days 14 hours 20 minutes
3. #3    We may need another FDR, but you can't run the nation with the president you wish you had. You have to run it with the president you have - the second coming of James Buchanan.
   
   Heck of a job, Barry (AKA that "half-white guy" in the Oval Office http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/she-said-what-wanda-sykes-gives-extremely-partisan-performance-at-white-house-correspondents-dinner/ )
   written by neoconned since 15 days 13 hours 45 minutes
4. #4    Michael Lind's book, "Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the SOUTHERN TAKEOVER of American Society" explains why this violent, belligerant, confrontational, hierarchical, conformist, cheap wages, intolerance, theocratic, and both culturally and internationally aggressive neaderthal agenda is so dominant in America.... he calls it the "neo-Confederate" agenda, and attributes it to the Scots-Irish & Anglo-Americans who settled the South and Southwest (and northwest, in cases of "secession" minded WingNuts like Sarah Palin & her husband, the Idaho militias, etc.) based on a SLAVERY, exploitation of imported slaves and extermination of native,Mexican, and...
   
   » ver todo el comentario
   written by veracity since 15 days 13 hours 44 minutes
5. #5    @#2 - The study shows only that Federal deficits - spending without revenue - stimulates the economy in the short term and harms it in the long term. The study even mentions that the same effect can be seen if the money is spent on the environment instead of the military.
   
   A better study would have used a more detailed model and included the effects of profiteering. But it didn't. It's really quite meaningless.
   
   The conclusion may well be true - I tend to believe it - but the study does not prove it.
   written by Mike5000 since 15 days 13 hours 27 minutes
6. #6    Re: "The study shows only that Federal deficits - spending without revenue - stimulates the economy in the short term and harms it in the long term"
   
   The US has been what Gore Vidal a 'National Security State' since the Truman admin. Basically --we've been at war since that time. The study addresses the long term effect upon an economy in a state of war. The result --as predicted --is the CONTRACTION (in the economic sense of the term) as a result of a militarism that DOES NOT stimulate but in the short term and, in fact, CONTRACTS the economy in the long term. We livin' it!
   
   This study is detailed enough and is consistent with everything Keynes ever said. Simplistically, the US --rather than blowing up tanks --would have been better off burying the same amt of money in a landfill and letting 'private enterprise' dig it up.
   written by vaquero since 15 days 12 hours 40 minutes
7. #7    Sorry vaquero, the study doesn't show that. It's probably true but the study doesn't show that because it doesn't distinguish between an unfunded 1GDP% increase in military spending, an unfunded 1GDP% increase in environmental spending, or an unfunded 1GDP% increase in the Senate's viagra allowance.
   written by Mike5000 since 15 days 4 hours 6 minutes
8. #8    The projections show that:
   
   • After an initial demand stimulus, the effect of higher defense spending turns negative around the sixth year. After 10 years of higher defense spending, payroll employment would be 464,000 less than in the baseline scenario. After 20 years the job loss in the scenario with higher military spending rises to 668,100 compared to the baseline scenario.
   
   • Inflation and interest rates would be considerably higher in the scenario with higher military spending. In the first five years, the annual inflation rate would be on average 0.3 percentage points higher in the scenario with higher military spending. Over the full twenty year period, inflation averages app...
   
   » ver todo el comentario
   written by vaquero since 14 days 19 hours
9. #9    And what would the model project if the same 1GDP% were spent on the environment? Exactly the same. The model is showing the short term benefits and long term disadvantages of Federal deficits. It has NOTHING to do with the military. Quoting at length from a flawed study doesn't make it any less flawed. You have to look at exactly what the study studied. EXACTLY the same arguments show that environmental spending is equally harmful.
   
   In fact, the same model shows that 1GDP% unfunded spending plus not imprisoning vaquero in Guantanamo causes the same problems. If you really believe in the non-logic of that study then you'd better turn yourself in.
   
   If you want to make a point about military waste use a meaningful study that our opponents can't ignore.
   written by Mike5000 since 14 days 17 hours 11 minutes
10. #10    Re: "And what would the model project if the same 1GDP% were spent on the environment?"
    
    Both the model and I would say: SO WHAT?
    
    The stats are irrefutable. With EVERY war, the economy has contracted. Clearly --just one percent of the US population has been enriched since R. R. Only a 'coincidence' theorist would claim that the increases in military spending during GOP regimes is ...well...just a coincidence!
    
    Gore Vidal was absolutely correct when he cited the example of the 'tank' ---an economic black hole he called it. Once the tank is built and paid for, it produces NOTHING but requires upkeep, ammo, personnel to run it et al. It's a money losing proposition unless you...
    
    » ver todo el comentario
    written by vaquero since 13 days 19 hours 46 minutes
11. #11    On percent spent on the environment SUCKS! And were more spent on the environment, we might even see a return on investment as opposed to even GREATER percentages spent on death and destruction and WMD which are harmful to the environment. Really --you should address real issues instead of strawmen and bullshit!
    written by vaquero since 13 days 19 hours 44 minutes
12. #12    From the study: "In fact, most models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment. In this way, military spending is comparable in most models to any other form of government spending, such as spending on public goods or improving the environment."
    
    The cold hard facts support the 'model'. But, just as importantly the model 'explains' the cold hard stats. For example, model or no, EVERY gop prez since WW II has presided over declines not just in the growth of GDP but contractions over at least two quarters --enough to qualify as recession!
    
    Reagan is typical....
    
    » ver todo el comentario
    written by vaquero since 13 days 19 hours 24 minutes
13. #13    @#10 - "The stats are irrefutable. With EVERY war, the economy has contracted."
    
    The above is false, consider e.g. World War Two.
    
    Like you I oppose war profiteering and wars of offense. It undermines our case when we use arguments that anyone can see are meaningless. Those who are undecided will assume we have no valid arguments. Please use good solid arguments, or please be quiet. You're hindering not helping.
    written by Mike5000 since 13 days 16 hours 34 minutes

trackbacks

• (no trackbacks)
•  según Technorati