From: Dennis
The Vietnam War drained the life out of the US economy during the late sixties and early seventies, and the financial shock of a prolonged Mideast conflict could well be far worse. In the end, the markets are vehemently antiwar - a phenomenon that must mystify Noam Chomsky to no end." A kind of silly statement, as if "the markets" were some kind of disembodied entity apart from their politically structured relationship - can we say Enron and energy "markets." Vietnam coincided for most of its period with a great economic boom; the stock market and workers wages arguably collapsed starting with our withdrawal around 1973. The 60s tech boom and the early venture capital that had funded it through much of the period collapsed until Reagan's defense buildup helped spur a new round in the 80s until it collapsed in the early 90s once again.
The 90s tech boom is the interesting anomoly, a peace-driven boom around the Internet and its global expansion, but since much of that was based on an insane speculative bubble and massive corporate debt that may never be repaid, it's unclear if it's just the exception that proves the rule. I am sure that many tech companies are eyeing those possible new defense contracts as a lifeline during the present slump.
Now, if the government would do rational technology funding like other infrastructure funding during peacetime, wars would not be such a special savior of the tech sector or the broader economy.
But libertarians who oppose all government funding are just making asses of themselves with statements like the above.
-- Nathan Newman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20011130/57c13389/attachment.htm>