On Nov 21, 2006, at 7:11 PM, www.leninology. blogspot.com wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
>
>> Because they really believed their own propaganda. Because they were
>> a small, self-reinforcing circle of know-it-alls. They didn't listen
>> to people who knew anything because they thought it was going to be a
>> "cakewalk." Remember? I didn't think this was controversial, but
>> evidently it is to some.
>
> I remember that this was Bush administration propaganda: this was
> certainly
> how they sold it. But why assume that their idea of a 'cakewalk'
> is the same as
> yours? And why assume that was their first priority at any rate?
There have been any number of memoirs from former admin officials telling us just how crapheadedly stupid every aspect of this administration has been. Are all those just bullshit?
> I don't doubt that there is an element of hubris, but this is not
> because of
> Iraq being divided and weak: on the contrary, this much has helped to
> delay the day on which they will be scampering for helicopters on
> the roof
> of the embassy.
>
>> Huh? Federal nonmilitary spending is 2.3% of GDP, unchanged since the
>> mid/late 1990s, and below what it was when Daddy Bush left office
>> (2.5% - Clinton took it down to 2.1% in 1997, and it rose to 2.2% as
>> he was heading for the exit).
You said "state investment." It wasn't civilian.
> But that's missing the point: the US government knows as have every
> government since world war two that massive armaments expenditure
> stimulates growth and also diminishes the tendency of profit rates
> to be
> squeezed by the overaccumulation of capital.
I know that's the received wisdom, but it isn't really true. The profit rate peaked in the US in 1966, and it was not propped up by the increase in military spending to fund the Vietnam war. Profitability rose nicely during the 1990s even as the military share of GDP was falling to its lowest level since before WW II. That's not to say they're inversely correlated; it's probably truer to say there's little or no relation at all.
By the way, while everyone knows that military spending has increased in the Bush years, almost no one seems aware of the composition of that spending. Since the first quarter of 2001, the military share of GDP rose by 0.8 point, from 3.8% to 4.6%. Half that increase (0.4 point) comes from "purchased services" - R&D and "personnel support" (e.g. KBR running bases and such). Another 0.2 point comes from higher salaries for military personnel. Almost 0.1 point comes from higher petroleum purchases. The share devoted to weapons procurement is up just 0.1 point, and that is for equipment other than "Aircraft, Missiles, Ships, Vehicles, Electronics and software." The share of the named items is unchanged.
In other words, this has been good for a few firms - and it's been heavily concentrated in a few geographical regions, like northern Virginia. It's not done much to raise the overall profit rate, which has been done the old-fashioned way - intensified exploitation. Productivity is way up and wages are flat.
Doug