Kevin Brooks wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...


Fred J. McCall wrote:



Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.

It might, but it doesn't.




The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
necessary. .


Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working,

you can keep folks "working" as prison guards, but it doesnt make crime
"productive" Producte work produces new goods, service and human
capital that supports future productivity. Now being 'unproductive"
does not in and of itself make an expenditure wrong. as adam smith
said the whole end of society is consumption, productivity is a means ot
an end.


GDP is the sum of products and *services*; those prison guards provide
a required service, and their contribution is indeed reflected in the
GDP.

so is the value of owner occupied housing

OWNER OCCUPIED: A building or residence (especially a house) that
is occupied or lived in by those who have legal ownership. The direct
contrast to owner occupied is a rental unit. This term tends to surface
most often in the study of economics when calculating Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). In particular, the estimated rent on owner occupied
housing is calculated by the folks at the Bureau of Economic Analysis
and included in value of GDP.

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls_s...owner+occupied

there is a difference however between

1) the contribution of building a house (productive investment)

2) living in the house. (consumption of the stream of services
produced by the asset)

3) burning down the house and rebuilding it.

To use a famous example. If I throw a brick through a window and a
glazier repairs it for $200 that $200 goes into the GDP, but we are no
better off since we lost the "wealth" Throwing bricks through windows
is an unproductive act even though it increases the GDP

so some activities in the GDP are investment,(increae future GDP) some
are consumption ( no affect on future gdp) and some are stupid (reduce
future GDP)


Vince






Trust you to bring the Osprey into the mix. Are you prepared to bet
your life's savings that the civil version built by AB won't be a
moneymaker? And BTW, it has flown, and it does have firm orders on the
books.

12 billion in subsidized investment would normally produce a sure thing.
be my guest and invest in "osprey civil spin off" if you like

The maryland lottery is a better investment.

Vince