Re: / Andrew T on Marx, Luxemburg and Grossman/Permanent Arms Economy

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 03 2004 - 14:59:18 EST

sorry paul i couldn't read yr message carefully. will respond later

>>In the US, UK, and France there was much less destruction of
>>productive capital. In the US there has been no significant
>>military damage since the Civil War. Since the US accounts for
>>the greater part of world Military expenditure, the main effect
>>of this has to be seen in terms of the boost to economic
>>activity that it has produced in the USA for the last 60 years.
>>What would the economic history of the US have been like if
>>during that period military budgets had been at 1920's levels?
  ok i see a perm war econ thesis. war spending not always
stimulating. part of the reason for 70s stagflation; not much of a
stimulus now. less bang than under  reagan today,  moreover, military
cuts were stimulative under Clinton. Japan grew with minimal military
stimlus too.

i would like to revisit pilling on perm war econ thesis in his
critique of keynes,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EST