OT: was Cliff rant

What we do know is that the national debt is rising rapidly and is now over 8 trillion dollars U.S. Take a quick look at the graphs on the following site.

Will quote a bit of what he said.

------------------- But after the Second World War, under the pressure of the Cold War, expenditure on the military grew, grew so enormous in fact, that half of all Federal spending was for the Department of Defense. And it is of course, kept going. As some of you may know, the Brookings Institution actually did a retrospective study of spending by the United States on military weaponry, and on the military, and concluded that in current dollar terms, the United States since the Second World War has spent roughly $24-trillion on the military, with roughly one-third of that alone going just for nuclear weapons.

Galbraith asks, what could we have done with $24-trillion? What different kind of society could we have been, what role could we have played in the world had those resources been freed up for other purposes?

---------------------- A national health service, perhaps? After all, what is the average civilian in the US more likely to die from? A medical problem he cannot afford to have diagnosed or treated or enemy action?

You can listen to the interview or read the transcript at the radio national website.

At Background Briefing site at

Cheers,

snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com.au

As much as I like the old codger, take that with a big grain of salt. The US budget is a cornucopia for anyone who likes to cook with statistics.

If you take the whole US budget, including Social Security, military spending runs around 19% of the budget. For comparison, Medicare (our medical insurance for seniors) is 13% of the budget. Medicaid, which is medical insurance for the poor, is 8%. Social Security is 21%. (These are the New York Times figures, which are respected in the financial community and in other places where people really want to know what the numbers are, and aren't trying to use them for propaganda.)

But Galbraith is old, and remembers when we didn't count SS in the budget (pre-1965, I think). In those terms, if you accept the (probably twisted) statistics of the anti-war crowd, military spending in total looks like 48% of the budget. I seriously doubt if it's that high.

So, pick the numbers you want to fight with, and go for it. Just keep in mind that no one will believe any of it.

-- Ed Huntress

Major major problem is that the Federal Budget/annual report is no more, and most likely much less, reliable than was Enron's. The old joke about embezelement hold true -- The horses never come in but the auditors always do [although lately these seem to have been apointed by the bankruptcy courts].

I have to go no -- got to get another layer of sandbags over the bunker while theres still time.

Uncle George

Note that Galbraith wasn't talking the figure for a single year, it was for all years since WW2. He was also quoting the Brookings Institute and obviously believes their figures or he wouldn't have quoted them. The experts and Gailbraith know far more than we do about such statistics, and I, for one, see no reason to question the estimates. Others probably will, but I suggest that anyone who wants to question them carefully read, or listen, to the full interview.

After all, Gailbraith has far more experience, and more Ph.D.s, than anyone on this group.

If you have any questions direct them to the institute or Dr. Gailbraith, I am just quoting their estimate.

I don't. I've heard about the $500 toilet seats before, and thought the figure was higher than that actually. I used to get military surplus bidding l lists in the states, and the original costs were given.

However even a $600 toilet seat sounds extravagent to me. Let alone the hammers at $171.50. Still, have seen a whole _lot_ of surplus gear that struck me as vastly overpriced.

If any reader isn't convinced, and the US military is still disposing of their surplus gear by bidding list, lay your hands on a few and check the cost pricing. They used to send them out for nothing on request.

Some on this group would disbelieve [or believe] anything which confirmed to their wishes and preconceptions. :-)

Yep, a few billion here and a few billion there, and before you know it you are talking real money! :-)

I don't have time at the moment to chase down construction and maintainence cost for the joint US/Russian space station but I do know that many think it hasn't justified its construction and the money could have been far better spent elsewhere.

Cheers,

snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com.au

Yes, Cliff, but many people manage to live past retirement. This doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or no longer lead active lives. We don't shoot doctors, judges, artists or even politicians at age 65. :-)

Cheers, snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com.au

Of course. All economists quote the figures they believe.

But, as Harry Truman used to say, what we need is some one-armed economists. "My economists are always telling me, on the one hand, but then on the other hand..."

As someone who spent nearly a year of his life researching for some articles on world trade, talking daily to top economists in and out of government, I wouldn't believe any estimates from any of them.

Galbraith is (was, actually) an expert on price theory, price controls, monopoly and oligopoly, and theories of money. That's enough to put on an economist's late for a lifetime, but it's still a very small slice of economics.

He's too old. His last book (I've read most of his books) was the work of a somewhat enfeebled man. It made me sad, because I enjoyed his writing more than that of any other economist.

There is much better introductory writing today on economics for the layman.

You heard that around 25 years ago...or you did, if you were listening at the time. It's now ensconced among the legends of economic polemics in the US.

What you're actually looking at is artifacts of accounting. There are hundreds of them. Toilet seats and hammers became journalists' favorites because they produce a resounding thud when used in an article.

Of course. I used to have a WWII National Radio Jeep transceiver, that I kept just to look at. The entire inside of the thing was silver plated.

I think most of us here have been doing that since we were little kids. I quit when I decided I had enough junk.

Most would.

When you pull enough together to produce a fresh idea on the American economy, let us know. Right now you're dabbling with the playthings of propagandists and polemicists. They aren't for beginners.

Many can be gathered to claim that expenditures on anything could have been better spent elsewhere. It's a national sport.

-- Ed Huntress

It is always irritating to the "suits" (who always have the "one" right answer) to realize that many circumstances are so complex and fluid that there is no one "right answer," and given the interrelatedness of the world, indeed no single condition, but rather only a single aspect they are concentrating on at the time. Remember the seven blind wise men and the elephant....

Right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For one thing the estimates aren't even consistent. For example, one countries exports must be another countries imports, thus the total of global imports and global exports must sum to zero, which they do not from the published figures. Are we sending this stuff to Mars?

The assumptions economists make in order to mathmatically represent and analize economic activity are real howlers. My favorate is "assuming zero transaction costs." A close second is "Assuming perfect information." I can assume that my aunt has some cajones too, but that dosen't make her my uncle, and she never will be.

Uncle George

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make proud....

Our governmental policy makers while chanting the ever popular "free market -- free market --" have set the interest rates [too] low to ostensibly "stimulate the economy," but in actuality to minimize the amount they must pay on the ever growing [ain't compounding wonderful] national debt.

As has been discovered many times over the last 5,000 or so years you can control the price [in the case of money/capital -- interest] or you can control the supply of a commodity, but you can't do both.

We now have the situation where many people quite rationally have decided that savings is non productive [indeed, you have a negative return for most investments when inflation and "tax affect" are considered].

Uncle George

It does seem that 'investing' or 'saving' means that one does whatever one can, to minimize the loss of value of ones assets.

IOW you can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game.

Jim