Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site proper.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!onyx!dual!proper!gam From: gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Ronnie Ronnie....Balanced Budget Message-ID: <1023@proper.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Mar-84 02:28:00 EST Article-I.D.: proper.1023 Posted: Fri Mar 2 02:28:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Feb-84 04:42:08 EST References: <1020@proper.UUCP> Organization: Proper UNIX, San Leandro, CA Lines: 25 > From: kip@proper.UUCP (Kip Quackenbush) > Erik and Gordon, I agree with the two of you concerning > the upturn of the economy due to a stimulated industrial > complex.....BUT, consider other factors which have stimulated > the economy such as the auto industry, housing, and consumer goods. > When the GNP is at 4.9% (highest since 78), the military complex is not > 'holding the fort' (I couldn't resist) alone. Ah, but remember where those `military' dollars go: to companies like Lockheed, Boeing (who in turn buy computers from companies like Amdahl, who pays me so I can go buy cars and motocycles). The military spending affects the economy in a broad way. Now, I did discuss this with my officemate at work (who holds a BA in Economics from UC Davis) and he confirmed that putting money into `capital destroying' goods like bombs and tanks -- things that will be thrown away -- is in the long run less useful than `capital creating' goods like education, building space stations (to stimulate private industry to utilize space), roads, curing diseases, etc. He also said that things like feeding the poor and caring for the elderly are also `capital destroying' since they don't produce anything, but like I said economics is amoral (or, as he put it, it is the `dismal science').