Re: The Pentagon and Poverty

[pdavidso <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>]

>===== Original Message From Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>Sven,
>
>Surely you can contextualize the Pentagon's interventions abroad. Even a
>staunch anti-communist like me sees the picture as much more complicated.
>
> Remember, Iraq received significant military transfers in the late 1980's
>from the U.S. , even as Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds.
>
>I'm willing to concede that the invasion of Afghanistan was a sad
>necessity-thought it appears that the reconstruction is being botched and
>the Taliban is regathering strength.
>
>I'm willing to go so far as to believe that there was a moral justification
>for invading Iraq (though I am not willing to credit Bush and the Pentagon
>for acting on that basis). Perhaps something other than a new Shiite
>fundamentalist state will emerge from the rubble-but I am not willing to bet
>on it.
>
>The U.S. may have spent the Soviets into bankruptcy, but the Russian economy
>still remains worse off in many ways than it was under Communism. At any
>rate, poverty and economic deprivation are actually at much higher levels.
>And add to this Putin's war in Chechnya and the near desperate state of many
>former Soviet Republics.
>
>I see no success stories for world development due to Pentagon spending.
>
>What bothers me most about your post however, is that you don't take into
>account the opportunity costs of a) the Pentagon's actions and b) the
>immense drain on development resources at the global level of military
>spending-both U.S. and foreign.


 Cliff are you assuming full employment even without the increased military
spending?  And if not, then isn't it a terrible drain on resources to leave
resources idle -- especially labor resources which simply cannot be carried
over with little "user cost" of wastage till the next accounting period.

 We may agree that it would have been "better" if only Bush would have spent
the money on rebuilding infrastructure, or educating people, etc., but in the
absense of military spending do you not conceive the possibility that the
"deficit" would have been parri passu smaller -- and both Democrats and
Republicans would have applauded the smaller deficits as more desirable than
th current deficits.
>
>
Let's take the stated goals of the neocons-to bring democracy and economic
>prosperity to the Middle East. Actually, this is a goal I share, and I agree
>with some of the neocon critiques (e.g. that of Bernard Lewis) of Middle
>Eastern regimes. The U.S. could pursue this goal through a variety of
>mechanisms that do not require invading Iraq. We could start with promoting
>democracy in our chief ally-Egypt, while making new funds available for
>economic development in Egyp-equivalent say to what we spent on the war in
>Iraq.


Are you kidding or starry-eyed?  Do you really think the American people --
including liberals-- would go for more foreign aid to Egypt, etc, while our
schools, roads, etc are falling apart?



We could offer a Marshall Plan for the Palestinians, contingent on
>their agreeing to a few premises. We could encourage the Saudis to stop
>sponsoring Wahabi extremism.


What world do you live in?  Do you really expect a Marshall plan to be
acceptable to the American electorate?

Sven  is at least politically more saavy in my view.

Paul

Paul Davidson
Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
University of Tennessee
SMC 503
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550
office phone #;(865)974-3303; office fax#(865)974-4601
home phone and fax # (561)369-1951
email pdavidson@xxxxxxx
http://econ.bus.utk.edu/Davidson.html