dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (10/09/83)
I don't want to quarrel with the moral issues raised by Dave Mason,
but do remember one thing: when $1.3 million is "spent", the money
goes somewhere. It goes ultimately into people's pockets, whether
labour or investors. Some of that money even goes to buy food to
feed children.
Sure, money spent to develop agriculture is better spent (in terms of global
humanity) than money spent to develop weapons. But war does wonders for
certain sectors of the economy.
Dave Sherman
--
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!lsuc!davemason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (10/10/83)
To quote Dave Sherman "But war does wonders for certain sectors of the
economy." Very true! In fact one of the sectors that benefits the most
is our very own: computers. That is why I copied the article to the net.
There must be a better way than eg. ARPA to get basic research and applied
research done.
Another sector that would have a much tougher time is the other common
factor to ?60%? of the net: universities in both Canada and the States.
I'm not questioning that the universities usually (often? sometimes?) do
good things with that money, things that help mankind in general; but it
seems to me that those things should be the objective of the research, rather
than spin-offs.
(My quote above may be somewhat out of context, Dave was not advocating
war (at least not the way I read it).)
-- Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG,
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!mason
or {decvax,linus,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!mason (UUCP)tpkq@charm.UUCP (10/11/83)
NO!! *None* of this money ever fed any children. It represents only the TOTAL VALUE OF THE WORLD'S PRODUCTS WHICH ARE DEVOTED TO DESTRUCTION. If this kind of reasoning were valid (that is, "since the money was spent, it must have done some good somewhere"), then a single dollar could feed all the hungry children, just by being continuously circulated. When we read that $N are spent on arms, what this really means is that the total value of the capital and labor which has been devoted to war is equal to N (in dollars). This social product could just as well have gone toward meeting human needs.
noel@cubsvax.UUCP (10/11/83)
Spending money on military HARDWARE which hopefully just sits around
until it is junked is not just worse from a humanitarian point of view.
It dissipates capital from the economy.. instead of that money going back
into the economy to stimulate consumption, the finished product sits
in a stockpile. Also military spending creates less jobs per dollar
than just about any other type!
--
-- Noel Kropf {cmcl2,harpo}!rocky2!cubsvax!noel 212-280-5517
-- 1002 Fairchild; Columbia University; New York NY 10027steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (10/12/83)
What a wonderful topic for flaming you have here....
Please send all your articles on this subject to net.flame,
I am sure they will be apreciated...
Steven Maurerjbray@bbncca.ARPA (James Bray) (10/12/83)
Actually, I think the topic would be appropriate for net.politics, and I would welcome it there. I look forward to hearing more from the originator of the discussion.