need to get a life.
BillR
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Hendrik Fay
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:59 PM
To: Mercedes Discussion List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] US Foreign Aid - Military industrial complex long term
costs
I look
...
-Curt
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:29:11 +0930
From: Hendrik Fay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MBZ] US Foreign Aid - Military industrial complex long
term costs
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format
The main problem with the $$ investment in the military-industrial complex
is that there is a difference in life cycle for the capital outlay. When
you build a car or a pleasure boat or a 747 it has a life cycle that has a
high percentage of churn in the general economy, which is quite different
R
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 6:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Mercedes Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [MBZ] US Foreign Aid - Military industrial complex long term
costs
The main problem with the $$ investment in the military-industrial complex
is that there is a difference in life cycle
That same investment in most other goods keeps things churning to a
considerably higher degree than it does for most weapons.
I'm not sure I agree. Other than the cost of the raw materials
that leave the country, weapons expenditures all stay here and
churn like with any other product, such as
I look at it this way, spending money on military stuff is an investment
in security. Like installing a car alarm or home security system. Sure
it is one of those things we rather not have to do but that is the
situation we live in, until the situation changes I guess we are stuck
with having
