leninology wrote:
>Then why did they drive a huge increase in state investment in the US economy?
>Why the military Keynesianism? They aren't victims of some esoteric
>philosophy:
>they are against such state involvement as harms their class, while
>approving that
>which supports that segment of their class most allied with their interests.
But what about the argument that military Keynesianism isn't what it used to be? It doesn't drive growth in the larger economy like it used to. You can enrich Halliburton without needing lot of foresight and without recognizing that large segments of your class are unhappy with you because you're fucking things up.