h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, very Keynsian. The question has to be why is it spend on the military rather than on schools, hospitals, inner cities, and anything else where people benefit from the end product as well as the employment.

I suppose high military spending during the cold war is understandable, but is seems a massive victory against reason for it to continue to increase afterwards. Perhaps Cuba or Nicaragua is about to invade...

The reason it's spent on the military is because it can show tangible results, like troop numbers, or a fancy new plane or gun.

Education and health care aren't *right now*...and as the capital of fast food, the US is all about the immediate!

I think it's ashame that people don't realize the economy is better stimulated by productive means than artificial unproductive means ( the military). It is the production of goods and services that benefits all of us- the military, while necessary, doesn't really benefit us . On the other hand I think the business of the Federal government is primarily military, not education health care, etc.

"I suppose high military spending during the cold war is understandable, but is seems a massive victory against reason for it to continue to increase afterwards. Perhaps Cuba or Nicaragua is about to invade..."

I agree that the massive US defence-spending seems ridiculous. They have troop presences around the world they don't really need (Japan, Germany, UK), and far far too many nukes (as does Russia).

Og course, the UK has the same problem. We have forces stationed in Belize in South America, ffs. And in Cyprus. Both are relics of the Empire and, as far as I know, don't protect any British interests. In fact, in Cyprus the British troops have been known to behave appallingly towards the Cypriots.

But of course any US President who sensibly decided to slim-down the US military and gear it towards current goals and not, say, making sure Japan doesn't try to re-build a Pacific Empire would probably be shouted-down as making the US "weak".

"Education and health care aren't *right now*...and as the capital of fast food, the US is all about the immediate!"

That doesn't really make sense. The US hardly ever actually uses the vast majority of it's military (recently being an exception). If you fall and break your leg, that's pretty immediate.

'But of course any US President who sensibly decided to slim-down the US military and gear it towards current goals and not, say, making sure Japan doesn't try to re-build a Pacific Empire would probably be shouted-down as making the US "weak".'

Of course you're right, although I suspect that the US civilian population is well-armed enough to fight off most if not all foreign armies.

I suppose there might be a shortage of heavy artillery, aircraft and so on. But all they need to do is apply the same logic to that stuff as they apply to handgun ownership.

I think the governments should be required to have a surplus.
We have quite a large one before Bush took hold. He had us in debt before the War.

For myself and growing numbers there is a huge need for mobility, changing over vehicles , lifts and chairs and walking and bracing devices. Lots of room for improvement. If they have rovers for the moon and mars lets see a few for the people here that have needs.
Tranportation and affordable and safe housing seem to be big issues in UK and US. The autos too of course and energy alternatives.

Houses have to be changed if people are to stay in there own when elderly or long term in various conditions and or on wheels. The world is by no means suitable to get around in a chair --more jobs and access will enabling more wage earners.

The infrastructure of America and other Nations need fixed now. Re-doing the structures- electricty -roads- damns- nuclear and bio waste, parks and fires -nartural disasters. All the sorts of things that help get people on their feet and companies too.

The longer we are at war the more peolple that will need assistance and limbs-hands. There are enough people missing limbs these days in Eastern Europe Middle east and Africa for someone to make money.

FRreedom of speech exists but through the process of judicial precedent, there isn't a law or ruling against it and so therefore it exists. Also The Human rights act has incorporated the europena convention of human rights into law and so we do now have a number of written down freedoms and rights

About US Spending, during Vietnam a little technological mobilisation called the apollo programme was under way, producing tecnologies and developments subsequently used elsewhere (teflon being one of the more famous examples) Whilst military projecvts have benefitted civilian society (the internet being one of them) i think i would rather have $400 billion spent on scientific R&D and education, but i sup[pose that won't get allot of votes in america or Britain (For britain i mean the science in general, altough the education has been suplanted by the all encompassing concern of "public services", normally meaning the NHS and the Police)