Only 17% Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base Actually Made Products Not Meant To Kill

[Rakhmetov]

Professor Chalmers Johnson R.I.P.

By 1990, production for the Department of Defense amounted to 83 percent of the value of all manufacturing plants and equipment in the US. Only 17 percent of the US manufacturing base actually made products not meant to kill.


http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3311/81/

[El Rojo]

wait, wait, thats not true. i think what you mean is kill or maim

[syndicat]

a misleading statistic. the article claims 83 percent of the "value" of the plants was in manufacture of stuff for military use. this is the market value of the equipment, buildings, land etc. Now, it so happens that the defense industry is notoriously capital-intensive. also, often occupies large chunks of land. the Pentagon budget is a bottomless pit of extreme overpayment to military contractors, which increases the market value of the plant.

so this is not talking about the market value of the product. also, they don't define what they mean by "manufacturing". and what counts as a plant producing for the military? if an oil refinery supplies jet fuel to the military, then, even tho most of its product is not military oriented, do they include the whole value of the refinery?

you'd have to go to Chalmers actual work (this is just a quote from him).

moreover, the article is using this to cheer downsizing of the manufacturing base of the country. this is completely stupid. military product is precisely what is not allowed to be outsourced to other countries. it is the civilian products that have production moved offshore.

[HEAD ICE]

Chalmers Johnson died? Unfortunate.

[MellowViper]

That's fucked up. Imagine if we used that money to better peoples' lives and not take them away. I don't understand what's so hard for them to grasp about Keynesian economics. If the government spending massive amounts of money to build bombs can create jobs and stimulate local economies, then why couldn't spending money on things like roads, universal health care, and schools create jobs and stimulate growth as well? Is there something magical about blowing up infidelic, pagan scum that improves our economy better and nothing else? If we used it to build infrastructure, it would pay for itself in the long run. When the money and labor put into a bomb blows up men, women, and children, that's only going to leave future generations with a bitter history and tense relations. When you use it to fix the roads, it not only gives work to construction workers who spend money in their locals, but the spruced up infrastructure also has a lasting effect on commerce that killing heathens in a foreign land doesn't. For one, Semi-trucks not breaking down from hitting potholes helps move the economy along smoother. I really don't get the right wingers in not seeing this.

[GPDP]

That's fucked up. Imagine if we used that money to better peoples' lives and not take them away. I don't understand what's so hard for them to grasp about Keynesian economics. If the government spending massive amounts of money to build bombs can create jobs and stimulate local economies, then why couldn't spending money on things like roads, universal health care, and schools create jobs and stimulate growth as well? Is there something magical about blowing up infidelic, pagan scum that improves our economy better and nothing else? If we used it to build infrastructure, it would pay for itself in the long run. When the money and labor put into a bomb blows up men, women, and children, that's only going to leave future generations with a bitter history and tense relations. When you use it to fix the roads, it not only gives work to construction workers who spend money in their locals, but the spruced up infrastructure also has a lasting effect on commerce that killing heathens in a foreign land doesn't. For one, Semi-trucks not breaking down from hitting potholes helps move the economy along smoother. I really don't get the right wingers in not seeing this.

Oh, they see it, alright. It just isn't in their interest to follow through with such insights. A healthy economy = a stronger working class = the balance of power between classes is more even. And we just can't have that, now can we?