3 ms·
That's just an argument for government directed research spending (specifically: astronomy), not military spending.
by morsch 11y ago
That's just an argument for government directed research spending (specifically: astronomy), not military spending.
- melling 11y agoThe point is that if you don't spend the money on the military, it doesn't mean that the money will be redirected to non-military research. We justify spending large amounts of research dollar in the name of "national security". If we didn't need a military tomorrow, social programs would get the money or taxpayers would simply want their money back.
- brixon 11y agoA lot of our wars are funded with borrowed money, so we never really had it in the first place. http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic
- melling 11y agoWhere did I say anything about war? The military is always a big expense.
- morsch 11y agoOh sure. But that doesn't make military spending a particularly efficient way of financing research, just a politically opportune one.
- melling 11y agoNo one said that it was the most efficient way. I'd love for more private sector or publicly research but alas corporations and the taxpayer doesn't seem to want to fund more.
- morsch 11y agoYou didn't make any such claims, but the fact remains that fielding the research benefits of military spending without those caveats we've worked out is misguiding, which is how the whole thread started out.