3 ms·
That was sort of my original point, much of the US high value engineering (defense/transport/infrastructure) is for the US government. Which means that the more
by uytrhyujkujhy 16y ago
That was sort of my original point, much of the US high value engineering (defense/transport/infrastructure) is for the US government. Which means that the more the taxpayer spends on overpriced defense contracts and cost overruns the better US industrial output looks
- gscott 16y agoI agree, paid for by the Fed buying U.S. Treasuries or by banks buying U.S. Treasuries. It is bound to fail sometime. What could save us is China failing first, property bubble, major projects, the 24/7 work, bad loans, floated by the Chinese as well but is backed by their Treasury bond holdings and the fact that no one knows how much money they print.
- enjo 16y agoI keep seeing this, but never a citation. Looking at the best data I could find: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/prel/pdf/table1p.pdf http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/prel/pdf/table1p.pdf Total output: 436,031 Excluding defense: 424,680 Making defense, at least how it's defined in this report, merely 2% of the total output. I'm not sure how much of that 2% is going to the U.S. government as these defense contractors also produce quite a bit for other countries. That probably doesn't cover the total of it, but I just can't find any substantiation that the government is buying up a significant amount of the manufacturing output. Does someone have a source to help me better understand this?