From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:52:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Oct7.045236.18549
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1469100020@igc.apc.org> mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman) writes:
>
>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.

Military contracting does produce fewer *direct* jobs than public
works or education spending. However, this is where the multiplier
is important, more money is pumped into the local consumer economy
by higher paid workers than by lower wage employees. That's because
a larger proportion of their income is discressionary. 

>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.

If by higher income you mean millionaires, then you are correct. But
if by higher income you mean aerospace workers, you are wrong. Most
of the middle class have *no* savings and a substantial debt load.
That's because their consumer spending is a very high percentage of
their income. Low wage workers and welfare recipients spend the bulk
of their small incomes on subsistence expenses such as utilities and 
food. The margin in utility and food services is small and the multiplier 
consequently low. The margins in consumer goods are high and the 
multiplier is also high.

>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.

Highway spending has a different kind of multiplier as you note. However,
the Federal Highway Trust Fund is currently in surplus and new highway
construction is vigorously opposed by legal action. In other words, the
public thinks they have enough roads. Technologies never occur in a
vacuum. The enabling infrastructures developed to support a given 
technology usually have wide applicability. The classic example is
the semiconductor industry. The aerospace industry no longer drives
this basic industry, but it was space and military funding that
pushed the technology to the point where it became widely available
to the civilian economy. Now, the military's problem is that the
consumer sector has outstripped the military applications and getting
spare parts for older designs still in service is difficult. Military
funding no longer drives this industry. It should be pointed out that
few of the civilian applications of semiconductors were forseen at the
time the military was driving this technology. That's true in most 
cases where complex new technology infrastructure is required to reach
a critical mass before consumer applications can take off. Some of
the technologies currently being pushed by military requirements,
composite materials come immediately to mind, will likely form the
basis for new civilian applications as the basic technologies mature.

>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.

I think that's correct. Note that the bulk of military spending is
for personnel, as it always has been. That's vital for national
security, but doesn't drive technology.

>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.)

Well, I think it's acurate to say that SSF is not primarily about science.
Though it will serve as a science platform. Primarily it's an engineering
testbed for exploiting an alien environment. The entire space program is
only peripherally about science. It's primarily about technology development
and political show the flag at this point. Judged only on the basis of
science value, the entire space program should be cancelled and the money
be put into basic field grants right here on Earth. Much more science could 
be accomplished on millions of tabletops than in one space probe, and employ 
more science workers in the process. Most Big Science is really engineering
development rather than basic research. I happen to think that engineering
development is valuable, but that's my bias.

>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.

That's impossible to do. Your technical analysis is colored by your
personal intellectual framework no matter how hard you try to be
objective. If you believe something is undesirable, you're going to
select data that supports your position, even if unconsciously, and
give less weight to data that contradicts your views. Few things in
research are so cut and dried that you can reach an objective decision
a priori, and those things that are don't need research anymore. 
Uncertainty of outcome is the primary reason for doing pure research.
Development is a different matter. There desired outcomes are clearly 
defined by policy, and policy is always subjective.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary