Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxa!wetcw
From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Defense Spending and the Economy
Message-ID: <411@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Dec-83 09:16:58 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.411
Posted: Tue Dec  6 09:16:58 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 01:19:12 EST
References: <254@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 60

If anyone would care to go back over the 54 lines, they would notice
that I have nowhere advocated that DEFENSE spending was the panacea
for economic growth.  It does contribute in the areas of low-tech
spending such as the maintenance of our standard weapons systems,
the upkeep of our manpower requirements from fixing the roof on a
barracks to the post laundry( all under private contract by small
businesses).  

What I was getting at, perhaps not too clearly, was that spending,
by the government, would best be served by building large ticket items
which, when completed, can be scrapped and begun again.  For instance,
(this is only an example so don't get into a snit) build a battleship,
in say Philadelphia.  Now, to build a battleship, it requires a great many
skills and jobs, from high-tech computer wizards to painters.  For every
person working on the job in Philly, there are perhaps 40 to 50 others
who are producing the materials needed to supply those at the building 
site.  

Those supplies include everything from the paper the wizards are using
to design the ship to the paint, brushes, and even the cans the paint comes
in for the painters.  This does not even include the enourmous amounts
of steel and its fabrication.

Once the ship is finished, it is sailed to Norfolk where it is dismantled
and its parts reclaimed, and another ship started in Philly.  In total,
nearly a quarter of a million people would share in the cost of the ship.

To build a hospital (not that I don't think that we need many more) is
not an economically viable alternative as it has too much value as
it stands.  Further, once we have run out of places to build hospitals
and schools, the economy goes belly up again.  These are items that
have a great deal of value and thus are protected and maintained so that
a need for more of them is lessened. 

In a microcosmic view, thank God for rich people who buy a new car every
year.  By their doing this, they perhaps provide jobs for 2 or 3 people
on the assembly line, not to mention the the support that those people
require.

This type of spending has been going on in this country for a long
time.  If anyone is interested in hearing about some of these projects
that create something that is valuless, let me know.  

Finally, then I'll stop, my contention in the first place was that
we should be dumping money into space projects.  The argument that 
it is only a high-tech money drain is false as NASA contracts have
proven over the years.  The economey was never better than when
NASA was in its heyday building rockets and buying goods from
the marketplace.  You have to see beyond the prime contractor to
understand where money is being spent.  The study that was mentioned
that defense spending got less for the dollar never went beyond the
prime contractor.  The person who conducted the study, in all
kelyhood, had a preconcieved notion as to how the study was
going to end and made it do just that.

I could go on for hours about this, with much better examples
and arguments, however, some are already bored to tears.

		T (spread the wealth through jobs) C Wheeler