It's June 14, 2024, 08:39:30 AM
Definitely read Orwell's take on this infinite but of course the military economy is thriving. in fact here is a re up of some quotes from there"…the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.""The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations.""But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction — indeed, in some sense was the destruction — of a hierarchical society.""For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away.""The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed."
It's questionable. On the short hand it is, especially for big businesses and manufacturers. But in the long run when money is spent and circulated outside of where it's made, then the economy is set to go down.
Quote from: Ted Is Unofficially Voting for Ron Paul 2008! on July 06, 2007, 03:58:07 PMIt's questionable. On the short hand it is, especially for big businesses and manufacturers. But in the long run when money is spent and circulated outside of where it's made, then the economy is set to go down.I also heard from Harry Browne's investment show, that it actually doesn't leave the economy. Because, something like they spend in dollars, so they have to sell those dollars into their own money, and somehow that keeps the dollar circulating, or they invest it into American businesses. So it has something to do with the strength of the dollar. Can't say I really understood what he was saying, and he was mainly trying to dispell the theories that American setting up companies in places like India isn't really bad for the economy. He also said that America is becoming more of a service company and placing our manufacturing base in other countries, and he said there's nothing wrong with that; that it actually means that we've elevated ourselves to yet another higher level of prosperity than manufacturing based countries.
The economy is weakened by massive trade deficitsWeakened by it's massive over dependency on other nationsAs for the choice of service sector jobs, the vast majority of service sector jobs are poorly paid, forcing people into a position where they have to take a service sector job is not choice. Also the reason why outsourcing is so cancerous, is that any jobs can suddenly be lost, you have a service sector, yet on the back of it, you have the very real danger of also those jobs being outsourced. However even more importantly, with the national debt as it is, output is vital to the economy, the more manufacturing is lost the less output and like I said, the less real value, i.e. less is being produced, more is being depended on from cheap imports.
No because the money being spent in the service sector is being spent courtesy of a plentiful money supply, courtesy of a dollar which has been massively devalued due to the mass outsourcing and thus trade deficit. That is not a greater standard of living it's a sleight of hand when people see all of this "money".