Re: Republican Military Keynesianism Redux

["schulte-baeuminghaus" <cresscourt@xxxxxxxxx>]

John,

While I can give support to some of what you say, particularly to the
idea of providing spending stimuli to an economy turning down, I'd
like to comment briefly on one particular feature.
That feature is defence spending and the reinforcement of the
material, technological, scientific capability of what is already the
most powerful military force in the world.
I support the idea of the United States taking care of its security.
It has allies and friends who will be comforted by a strong - even
stronger - United States. I can even support the development of an
anti-ballistic missile. As I have written in the past, this might well
be the greatest threat to the United States, and perhaps other
countries, in the future. It could come from a rogue group, even a
rogue individual, more likely even than from a rogue state. I would
hope that Russia and China in  particular could be persuaded to see
that a defence against this threat is in their own longer-term
interests and not a threat to their security from the United States.
But I am concerned at an economic policy broadly based on defence
spending to sustain employment, growth and profits. Much of the
spending will bring little or no benefit to peaceful infrastructure,
although some certainly will. Some will have peaceful research
spin-off, although that is likely to be limited and cannot be
calculated with any precision. Some will bring export benefit to the
United States through sales to its allies and friends - and perhaps to
some who are not particularly its friends.
That brings me to the point that the world at present, largely though
not wholly as a heritage of the Cold War, is armed more terrifyingly
than ever before. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, advanced conventional
weapons are in the hands of large and small armies - and terrorist,
paramilitary and militia groups - all around the world. Dirt-poor
countries are spending their last few dollars on high-tech weaponry.
Governments in the United States, Europe and elsewhere eagerly flog
their advanced weaponry wherever they can. They balance their defence
budgets, they balance their general budgets, they fund their research
and development of new weapons, by joining the arms dealers, by
selling their most formidable merchandise often to the most dubious
régimes.
WW2 was terribly destructive but a small platoon in a small west
African country today probably commands more firepower than an entire
battalion that landed in Normandy on D-day. A ten-year-old boy soldier
in Sierra Leone today probably has more hitting power than a
front-line Soviet infantryman in the last days of the battle for
Berlin in 1945.
What are we doing to modify this almost universal, accelerating
capacity to kill and destroy?
Almost nothing.
There is some rhetoric from time to time, almost entirely confined to
such things as nuclear weapons, chemical and bacterial warfare and
landmines. But the process of arming everyone to the teeth with the
most formidable conventional weapons goes on and on.
It is against this background that the idea of propping up the largest
economy in the world - and the technologically most advanced economy
in the world - through massive, long-term military spending must cause
us - to put it mildly - some disquiet.
Perhaps Bush the Younger might think of other infrastructure spending
that would be less terrifying. The environment has been mentioned.
That would be more calming for our nerves. Some more visionary
expenditure might appeal too. For example, one of the world's most
neglected problems is provision of clean water to everyone. Even the
most advanced economies have problems with water supply. The less
developed not only have too little - and sometimes too much "wild"
water - but many have little or no safe water.
Here might be an area in which the United States could give a lead.
Not by building dams, as Roosevelt did in the Tennessee Valley in the
1930s, but by taking hold of a concept of cheap and safe water for all
- even making the deserts bloom - all around the world. It might not
be entirely economic - maybe some of the money would be wasted - but
it would be a great deal better, and more humane and visionary, than
bolstering the largest economy in the world by the production and
distribution - perhaps worldwide? - of the most advanced weapons of
mass slaughter and destruction that the world has ever seen.
What do others think?


James Cumes

----------
>From: "John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>
>To: "Cyberspace Society" <Cyber-Soc@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Post Keynesian Thought"
<pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Republican Military Keynesianism Redux
>Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2000, 7:36 am
>

> Why would not young Bush be attracted to Reagan's
> experiment with high military budgets and their potential
> good for national military and economic security?
>
> The Republican party may not have communism (as it
> was) to unify its several political bases. But the broad
> notion of America as leader, superpower, and place
> where most people in need would love to go for a
> better chance in life (including top candidates for high-
> tech employment), appeals to chauvinist Republican
> sentiments and serious Republican economic interests.
>
> So the stage is set for government spending to reform
> and modernize America's force projection arsenal and
> capabilities. The spending will probably be sufficient
> to make up for any loss of "wealth effect" as spur to
> business to, in turn,  protect everyone but the
> now-very-poor from scary harm. This can give the
> Republicans a victory in 2002 if they spend enough.
>
> (As for the now-very-poor, they are the responsibility
> of Republicans and Democrats, alike. We all must
> work together to provide BOTH opportunity for
> those who can use it AND support for those who
> may otherwise suffer. We now know that achievers,
> in their millions, are not ruined by support -- they
> are ruined by absence of opportunity. The few who
> need more than others, to find themselves, can be
> given extra time and attention with no ill effect on
> others who just don't need it.)
>
> What of some inflation, as the dollar dirfts down --
> as it may? What of environmetal protection? There are
> environmental needs that can be turned into opportunity
> for profit -- not just the stuff of political opposition
> and lawsuits.
>
> So young Bush will have to convince Greenspan
> to accept what inflation may come that Bush's
> team is convinced will only do good in the long
> run -- by increasing manufacturing opportunities
> (and jobs) at home.
>
> We Keynesians want capitalist governments to
> accept high inflation as long as hyper-inflation is
> prevented.  So our theories and Bush's needs are
> the same. Too bad we don't like each other.
>
> Clinton presided over our transformation from a
> national security state to a national entertainment
> state. Bush will now pull us back to a world
> security state -- with allies who don't like the
> Americanization of entertainment anyway.
>
> California loves to make weapons and movies.
> So Bush can win here if he does all he's got
> in mind (by my lights) -- does it as well as
> Reagan did his thing (this time without Volker
> to muck it up).
>
> At the height of the cold war, neo-conservatives
> split off from the articulate left to champion
> freedom over addiction to communist nonsense.
> It would be nice to see today's articulate left
> develop doctrine for the 21st century that
> championed environmental Keynesianism,
> educational Keynesiasm, and world security
> Keynesianism over addiction to vague socialist
> opposition to a political economy that no
> longer exists.
>
>     The liesure class has gone. We live today
>     with the achiever class. They may not all
>     be as good as we are -- but they are
>     willing to learn whatever we know.
>
> John Gelles  www.1944.org
>
>