<[email protected]> wrote: > Are you saying that the military spending had a positive effect on the > economy? The paper is saying that military spending has a negative effect. > Should military spending be included total production as a positive indicator > of the health of an economy.<
The "health of the economy" from what perspective? the National Income and Product Accounts of the US present a capitalist perspective.[*] In this view, anything which leads to revenues being received by business contributes to economic health, as measured by GDP. Thus, just as with all purchases of newly-produced goods and services on the market, military spending within the boundaries of the US is counted as part of US GDP. However, I think in the long run, a good case can be made that military spending drains the ability of a capitalist economy (or even a self-described "socialist" economy as in the now-defunct USSR) to increase its ability to produce real GDP. (I'm willing to be convinced otherwise: after all, it's the Defense Department which produced the Internet. But at what cost?) -- Jim Devine / "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick [*] however, since at least in the short run, workers are dependent on the health of the capitalists (for jobs, etc.), it's not a _totally_ capitalist perspective. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
