5 ms·

That's been important, but it's not the only factor. Yes, intactness of American industry after WWI&II was key. It certainly gave the US a big leg up in post-

That's been important, but it's not the only factor. Yes, intactness of American industry after WWI&II was key. It certainly gave the US a big leg up in post-war industry and rebuilding. Imigration was a huge driver of the economy when it came primarily from Europe, and professionals were over-represented. Demographics can't be ignored, but neither can they tell the whole picture. I'm not trying to insinuate that the US is rich only because it has invaded countries and overthrown governments when doing so suited its economic interests, only that that behaviour has played a large role in its success. As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. I still think it's the right thing to do, but I don't argue for it on economic grounds.

stcredzero 15y ago
As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. Driving economic activity by having the military act as a major consumer is really just running on a treadmill. We need to find an outlet which will lead to increases in economic activity. There is a huge investment hurdle involved, but space exploration and colonization could fit the bill. Once there is a significant human presence in space beyond low earth orbit, there will be tremendous economic growth. The major problem is that hundreds of billions of dollars of investment would be required to jump start it.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  >Driving economic activity by having the military act as a major consumer is really just running on a treadmill. I think you're missing my point. It's not that military spending drives manufacturing, service, and R&D industries (although it does), it's that direct military action has often been, and is often used to promote US economic interests. See the military's actions in Latin America in support of United Fruit, military support of right-wing (pro-US and pro-business) dictators everywhere, or the military-political interventions in the Middle East in support of energy interests. My contention is not simply that making tanks is an economic activity that many people benefit from, but that those tanks are used to assert and defend economic dominance, which has a massive spillover effect for other industries.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    that those tanks are used to assert and defend economic dominance And the need for the assertion of force to defend economic dominance in turn cements the need for the military machine and perpetuates the military-industrial complex. We are essentially in agreement. I think it would be better for the US to concentrate on economic dominance through sheer commercial and industrial awesomeness combined with forward-thinking research and exploration.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      In that, we are in perctect agreement. With leadership and sane economic policy, the US could still be an economic juggernaut without the need for a military that could take out any two nations on earth simultaneously. It can still be by far the most powerful, without needing to cost as much as the next 8 combined.
- russell 15y ago
  While I'm an avid supporter of space exploration, it is not the cure for our economic stagnation. Much better are infrastructure improvements: replacing aging bridges, high speed rail, high speed communications, electrical transmission lines. Better to support solar, wind and nuclear energy than to wage wars in the middle east.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    A concerted national effort on removing our dependence on foreign energy resources would be a beneficial way to target our resources for the next 30 years or so. You missed my point. Sure, space exploration won't cure our economic stagnation in the 1 to 30 years time frame. But it will decide if we are a first, second, or third-rate power in the next 100 years.
    - nickik 15y ago
      I think it will take more more then 100 years but I agree generaly agreed.

stcredzero 15y ago

As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. Driving economic activity by having the military act as a major consumer is really just running on a treadmill. We need to find an outlet which will lead to increases in economic activity. There is a huge investment hurdle involved, but space exploration and colonization could fit the bill. Once there is a significant human presence in space beyond low earth orbit, there will be tremendous economic growth. The major problem is that hundreds of billions of dollars of investment would be required to jump start it.

redthrowaway 15y ago
>Driving economic activity by having the military act as a major consumer is really just running on a treadmill. I think you're missing my point. It's not that military spending drives manufacturing, service, and R&D industries (although it does), it's that direct military action has often been, and is often used to promote US economic interests. See the military's actions in Latin America in support of United Fruit, military support of right-wing (pro-US and pro-business) dictators everywhere, or the military-political interventions in the Middle East in support of energy interests. My contention is not simply that making tanks is an economic activity that many people benefit from, but that those tanks are used to assert and defend economic dominance, which has a massive spillover effect for other industries.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  that those tanks are used to assert and defend economic dominance And the need for the assertion of force to defend economic dominance in turn cements the need for the military machine and perpetuates the military-industrial complex. We are essentially in agreement. I think it would be better for the US to concentrate on economic dominance through sheer commercial and industrial awesomeness combined with forward-thinking research and exploration.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    In that, we are in perctect agreement. With leadership and sane economic policy, the US could still be an economic juggernaut without the need for a military that could take out any two nations on earth simultaneously. It can still be by far the most powerful, without needing to cost as much as the next 8 combined.
russell 15y ago
While I'm an avid supporter of space exploration, it is not the cure for our economic stagnation. Much better are infrastructure improvements: replacing aging bridges, high speed rail, high speed communications, electrical transmission lines. Better to support solar, wind and nuclear energy than to wage wars in the middle east.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  A concerted national effort on removing our dependence on foreign energy resources would be a beneficial way to target our resources for the next 30 years or so. You missed my point. Sure, space exploration won't cure our economic stagnation in the 1 to 30 years time frame. But it will decide if we are a first, second, or third-rate power in the next 100 years.
  - nickik 15y ago
    I think it will take more more then 100 years but I agree generaly agreed.