From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:53:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1469100017:cdp:1469100020:000:4231
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Oct  4 13:53:00 1992


Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org

Steinn Sigurdsson writes:

>In article <1469100017@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>
>   > Military and aerospace dollars have a particularly
>   >high multiplier, 7x, because the jobs pay well and allow the workers
>
>
>   I wonder where these numbers come from.  They seem implausible
>   to me, and would in any case be very hard to measure.  Everything
>   I have read suggests precisely the opposite, that money spent on
>   the military and other unproductive high-technology efforts (read
>   NASA) is particularly unbeneficial to the economy.
>
>Try Nature _355_ 107, 1992.
>
>So what are your sources?

I will try to find the article you mention.  But let me explain why
I think the numbers are implausible.  Military spending goes primarily
to high income people in capital intensive industries.  It is known to
produce far fewer jobs (about a factor of 3, if I recall) than the same
amount of money spend on public works or education.  I haven't looked
at this in a while, so I don't have references, but the Council on
Economic Priorities will.

I believe it is also true that higher income people spend less of their
money than low income people, so their money is likely to go into the
economy fewer times.  I have heard this as an explanation for the fact
that the increase in income during the Reagan years did not produce
sustained increases in consumer demand; the increases went to people
who spend less of their money.  Not being an economist, I cannot vouch
for the validity of this argument, but it tends to contradict what Gary
said.

It is important to note that military spending is essentially wasteful
in the narrow sense that it produces no product or public resource with
economic value.  Building a highway contributes to the economy by
facilitating transportation.  Building a fighter aircraft does not.
Technological spinoffs have become increasingly rare as military
technology has become increasingly specialized and isolated from civilian
technologies.

In the broader sense, of course, military spending can be extremely
valuable if it contributes to national security.  I think the debate
over military spending should rest on our security needs, not on
disputed economic claims.

Brad Wallet writes (in response to my skepticism):

>You may dispute [Gary's] numbers, but at least he offered some data.  To
>simple say "I have read" simply will not do.  Offer either data or
>logical reasoning.

See the above.  I would hardly call Gary's numbers "data," however.

>In an earlier posting, you said you worked in Congress.  No doubt you
>are pushing sometime of political agenda.  I respect that you admit
>that you are going to be biased.  Undoubtable, some will accuse me of
>being biased because I work for the military.  I just want to state
>that I work for the military because I believe what it does is necessary.
>Not vice versa.

Let me explain my position.  I am a Congressional Science Fellow, paid
by but not representing the American Institute of Physics to work for
Congress for one year.  I have just started, and am now interviewing to
see who might want me.  (As an aside, AIP opposes the Space Station
because it's not good -- or cost-effective -- science.  I think that's
correct, but misses the point.  The space station isn't about science;
it's about human spaceflight. I just don't think human spaceflight is
that important.)

I don't understand why you think having a connection with Congress should
associate me with any particular political agenda.  Congressional staff
members are not expected to pursue their own agendas, but those of their
bosses.  Members of Congress have almost as wide a variety of agendas as
those expressed on the internet.  In any case, their agendas are a reflection
of their constituents and (unfortunately) their campaign contributors and
lobbyists, among whom military contractors are an especially influential
group.

I hope to help Congress develop better public policies by providing sound
technical guidance where I can.  I may offer nontechnical judgments as well,
but I will do my best to distinguish clearly between technical analysis and
personal opinion.


Mark W. Goodman