Big Military Consequences
The Military Buildup Economy 2000-2004
By Bob Reuschlein
http://www.realeconomy.com ,
earlwal@chorus.net ,
608-848-5248
Conclusion: We have lost about 10% of our manufacturing jobs, 2.7 million according to Moveon.org (recent campaign commercial). The Moveon.org ad says that 1.0 million of that job loss is due to outsourcing (trade). The 1 million jobs lost to trade and 1.7 million jobs lost to the military buildup equals the 2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000. So of the 10% manufacturing jobs lost, 6% is due to the military buildup and 4% is due to outsourcing under trade treaties.
Then: In 2000 we had about a $10 trillion US economy with a $280 billion military budget. The manufacturing economy was about $3 trillion, 30% of that economy, and 20% of the jobs. We had about 140 million jobs and about 28 million manufacturing jobs.
Now: The military buildup from $280 billion to $460 billion is an increase of $180 billion. That $180 billion transfer to the military represents 6% of the $3 trillion manufacturing economy of year 2000. A loss of 6% of our 28 million manufacturing jobs is 1.7 million jobs.
Why: Manufacturing is very intensive in key resources like scientists, engineers, and capital just like military spending. Manufacturing requires a physical and technical labor force, just as soldiers, sailors, and airmen have very technical or physical labor. Military buildups hurt our economy in direct proportion to the size of the military buildup. They deplete these key resources and take them out of our total pool otherwise available to compete economically with foreign manufacturing. Military spending is the opposite of manufacturing in that it consumes and wastes resources, producing no net product out of the military “factory”, unlike other manufacturing that produces products we all need and use. In peacetime, military is a service like insurance, not a product. In wartime, military destroys, it does not create like manufacturing, construction, or farming.
Empires: All empires eventually collapse under the weight of high levels of military spending. While at the top, empires are very attractive to peoples around them, and this helps temporarily overcome the weight of the military spending.
Brains and talent drain from around the world to the center of the empire. Many of our doctors, engineers, and businessmen are foreign born. US universities train the world. The booming nineties occurred in the US because of cutting military spending’s share of our economy in half from the eighties, and because first generation immigrants in the US rose from 7% of our population in 1990 to 11% of our population in 2000. World talent sustained the US.
Wisconsin: Wisconsin’s military tax vs. spending gap has grown from $4.2 billion in 2000 to $7.5 billion in 2004. The loss of $3.3 billion additional each year from the Wisconsin economy is greater than the $2.9 billion in farm milk sales in this state. Of the 80,000 manufacturing jobs lost here, 31,000 were from the military buildup and 49,000 were from trade (61% in new survey).
From Website home page: The higher a nation's military spending the lower its manufacturing productivity, a main ingredient in economic growth. This is why Germany, Japan, and Italy caught up with The United States and passed Great Britain during the Cold War. In the nineties, cutting the military in half restored more economic forces to the normal economy in the United States than in any other leading industrial nation. America became the LEADING NATION in the world due to a century and a half of low military spending, and all great powers arise this way. Then they militarize as the U.S. did in World War II and eventually collapse under the military burden.
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545
From ufpj-news
By Bob Reuschlein
http://www.realeconomy.com ,
earlwal@chorus.net ,
608-848-5248
Conclusion: We have lost about 10% of our manufacturing jobs, 2.7 million according to Moveon.org (recent campaign commercial). The Moveon.org ad says that 1.0 million of that job loss is due to outsourcing (trade). The 1 million jobs lost to trade and 1.7 million jobs lost to the military buildup equals the 2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000. So of the 10% manufacturing jobs lost, 6% is due to the military buildup and 4% is due to outsourcing under trade treaties.
Then: In 2000 we had about a $10 trillion US economy with a $280 billion military budget. The manufacturing economy was about $3 trillion, 30% of that economy, and 20% of the jobs. We had about 140 million jobs and about 28 million manufacturing jobs.
Now: The military buildup from $280 billion to $460 billion is an increase of $180 billion. That $180 billion transfer to the military represents 6% of the $3 trillion manufacturing economy of year 2000. A loss of 6% of our 28 million manufacturing jobs is 1.7 million jobs.
Why: Manufacturing is very intensive in key resources like scientists, engineers, and capital just like military spending. Manufacturing requires a physical and technical labor force, just as soldiers, sailors, and airmen have very technical or physical labor. Military buildups hurt our economy in direct proportion to the size of the military buildup. They deplete these key resources and take them out of our total pool otherwise available to compete economically with foreign manufacturing. Military spending is the opposite of manufacturing in that it consumes and wastes resources, producing no net product out of the military “factory”, unlike other manufacturing that produces products we all need and use. In peacetime, military is a service like insurance, not a product. In wartime, military destroys, it does not create like manufacturing, construction, or farming.
Empires: All empires eventually collapse under the weight of high levels of military spending. While at the top, empires are very attractive to peoples around them, and this helps temporarily overcome the weight of the military spending.
Brains and talent drain from around the world to the center of the empire. Many of our doctors, engineers, and businessmen are foreign born. US universities train the world. The booming nineties occurred in the US because of cutting military spending’s share of our economy in half from the eighties, and because first generation immigrants in the US rose from 7% of our population in 1990 to 11% of our population in 2000. World talent sustained the US.
Wisconsin: Wisconsin’s military tax vs. spending gap has grown from $4.2 billion in 2000 to $7.5 billion in 2004. The loss of $3.3 billion additional each year from the Wisconsin economy is greater than the $2.9 billion in farm milk sales in this state. Of the 80,000 manufacturing jobs lost here, 31,000 were from the military buildup and 49,000 were from trade (61% in new survey).
From Website home page: The higher a nation's military spending the lower its manufacturing productivity, a main ingredient in economic growth. This is why Germany, Japan, and Italy caught up with The United States and passed Great Britain during the Cold War. In the nineties, cutting the military in half restored more economic forces to the normal economy in the United States than in any other leading industrial nation. America became the LEADING NATION in the world due to a century and a half of low military spending, and all great powers arise this way. Then they militarize as the U.S. did in World War II and eventually collapse under the military burden.
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545
From ufpj-news
Starmail - 19. Aug, 17:15
