3 ms·
Did the article change? Because you put employing millions in a quote as if he said that, I don't see the articles quoting him on that. But, it is possible to
by talmand 10y ago
Did the article change? Because you put employing millions in a quote as if he said that, I don't see the articles quoting him on that.
But, it is possible to consider that employing millions in this sector could lead to decline of various types in other sectors.
Still, there were not "millions" employed for war. I would require a source on that.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoFrom a random article I googled, Over 1,400,000 Americans are now on active duty; another 833,000 are in the reserves, many full time. Another 1,600,000 Americans work in companies that supply the military with everything from weapons to utensils. (I’m not even including all the foreign contractors employing non-US citizens.)
- nojvek 10y agoWhat about all the jobs US destroyed. The world is much larger than the US. Bombing the shit out of Iraq totally destroyed their economy. The ISIS exist because they're US military fucked up big time. If trump manages to close a number of expensive military programs and put the money in infrastructure, I think that would make the world a slightly better place.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoYes war is bad. The topic was, a strange claim that war caused unemployment. Its been long understood that war created nearly full employment, for all the obvious reasons.
- avisser 10y ago> a strange claim that war caused unemployment Not really. From the article: > Chinese billionaire and Alibaba founder Jack Ma believes that improper distribution of funds and hyper inflated US military spending, not globalization or other countries “stealing” US jobs, is behind the economic decline in America. So the claim is that wiser spending would have resulted a better US economy, to which nojvek's comment seems germane to me.