Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
From: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS])
Newsgroups: can.general,can.ai
Subject: Re: Star Wars North
Message-ID: <1194@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Apr-85 09:32:51 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1194
Posted: Mon Apr  1 09:32:51 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Apr-85 00:43:47 EST
References: <890@ubc-vision.CDN>
Reply-To: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS])
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath can.general:189 can.ai:43

In article <890@ubc-vision.CDN> mack@ubc-vision.CDN (Alan Mackworth) writes:

>     -  Canadian participation will destroy  any  credibility  we
>     may  have  left  as  an  honest  broker on the international
>     stage.

Not true.  Canada is a part of NATO, and as such should take part in
NATO projects (next you'll be telling me we should get out of NATO).

>     -  SDI is an inefficient and wasteful  way  to  pursue  job-
>     creation.    Weapons   research  and  development  has  been
>     compared, in its economic impact, with digging  an  enormous
>     hole  in  the ground and filling it in again.  It has little
>     spinoff benefit to the industrial and consumer economy.  The
>     economic  multiplier effects are minimal compared with other
>     activities.  Using lasers, particle beams and  computers  to
>     dig  the  hole does not change that fact! The United States'
>     economy is now overheated because of massive military expen-
>     ditures.  It appears however that, fundamentally, that econ-
>     omy is in decline.   In  1984  the  United  States'  current
>     account  balance  of  payments deficit was $101,600,000,000.
>     It is now a net debtor nation.  Is this the economic perfor-
>     mance we want to emulate?

I am not saying that SDI is the greatest way to pursue job-creation,
but it is a delusion to say that it does not have an economic impact.
Just how did you figure that ``multiplier effects are minimal''.  As I
remember from my Econ courses, multiplier effect stems from the fact
that money circulates in the eonomy, and spending by one person
results in income by another, and hence further spending.

Well, SDI money would not just be thrown away; it would be spent on
salaries, equipment and materials.  Purchases of each one of these
result in income to somebody else (scientists, technicians, computer
companies, ...) who will once again spend the money for a further
multiplier effect.  There IS a significant economic impact from
significant spending, regardless of whether it's for the military or
not.

>          Instead of SDI and military research we should  concen-
>     trate   our  efforts  on  developing  a  humane  technology,
>     oriented at the consumer market and at the enormous problems
>     we  face  in  manpower training, health, education, resource
>     management and manufacturing technology.   These  are  areas
>     that  have  high  economic  multipliers, generate meaningful
>     employment and wealth, and at the same time do not  threaten
>     our survival.

An admirable thought (especially the ``meaningful jobs'' part).
However, the Russians DO threaten our survival, too, and we can't
quite ignore them.

>          As professionals we must speak up and let the    
>     decision makers know our feelings, loud and clear.

I'm only a student, but you heard mine.


				   \tom haapanen
				   watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
Don't cry, don't do anything
No lies, back in the government
No tears, party time is here again
President Gas is up for president		 (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982