"real wealth"

[GN842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx id <01HVOY9TYVQE8X4FNF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:24:58 -0400 (EDT)]

The notion that military keynesianism (building weapons because
one can rally a political majority for that but not for public works
and other forms of redistribution) generates "real wealth" is
I suppose defensible.  You can always argue that something good
will come of something done.  Perhaps building cannons will lead
to a metallurgical breakthrough.

But a society devoted to building aircraft carriers in effect is
doing worse than hiding bottles full of banknotes deep in the ground
so that others can dig them out.  It is creating real destructive
potential.  If you build houses, you can live in them.  If
you build space telescopes, arguably that is "equivalent" to
building aircraft carriers, but I find repugnant any ethical,
or even logical, sense which equates the ability to study the
distribution of galaxies with the ability to bomb whoever.

Sometimes a simple reality check is in order.  Berlin 1945 was
rather short of "real wealth."  (homes, sewage disposal, water,
food, etc.).   So are most of the homeless people I see.  But not
even a penchant for redistribution in the form of jobs would make
me endorse a "Keynesian" policy based on building nuclear missiles
and their silos.  I'd prefer to take my chances with the
business cycle, thank you.

greg nowell