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').