For a while after college I worked at a women’s shelter. There I studied what it meant to be non-violent and how to identify violence in everyday culture. Only after that period in my life did I become aware of the pervasive role violence plays in our culture. And Veteran’s Day is no exception…
Like many Americans my family has a deep history with the military. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and Gulf War II have all touched my family. And its not only because of how these wars have affected my loved ones that I say we need to be cognisant of the effects of war on people, on nations. Wars happen because people decided to kill other people. And even the victor, in the end, suffers. Because of this profound truth we need to take every military-related holiday and recognize the true cost of war for both the victor and the vanquished.
In that regard, I’m glad to see that others recognize the true cost of war as well: Atrios, Yglesias.
Just read a great post at Yglesias’ blog about federal domestic spending vs. defense spending and the effects on economic growth. Two points here:
First, he’s not the only one who thinks over zealous defense spending hastens a decline in American hegemonic influence. I took a class in graduate school and we talked specifically about this particular topic. Read America’s Half Century if you’re interested in the scholarly details.
Second, I was discussing this issue with a Pakistani friend of mine. The point is simple: if you spend a dollar on a gun, the only way you’ll make money on that dollar is to use the gun to take resources from somewhere*. If you spend a dollar on education or some kind of infrastructure project (like high speed internet access), then its easy to imagine a way to make money from that dollar. Therefore, if we are concerned about our economic growth we need to minimize dollars spent on guns and maximize those spent on education or infrastructure.
*That is assuming, of course, the gun isn’t being used to protect our ability to make money with the previous dollar. But you all knew what I meant.
Saw a great example of reporting yesterday by The Guardian. How often do we hear this many details? Lots of facts – relevant facts! – about the topic at hand.
My Sirius radio plays through the car stereo way down on the dial, like FM 89.1 or thereabouts. Which means if my Sirius radio isn’t in the docking station then I’ll hear conservative talk radio for about 10 seconds twice a week. Today, in a fairly standard 10 seconds of hate, the host addressed our country’s recent economics numbers – only ~3% growth for the last quarter – and how that was nothing to write home about. This is true, see Krugman. But the host was trying to explain why we got the 3% growth. According to a USA Today article, he said, the 3% was mostly from government spending in the form of Cash for Clunkers while a significant portion of what was left of the growth was from some other stimulative effort by the Obama Administration. In short, we got growth from government spending.
Which is totally true!
What amazes me is that I don’t think he knows his segment was articulating exactly why government spending helps stimulate the economy! Which was weird given his tone about the stimulative efforts proposed by Mr. Obama. That is, the host requires economic growth – more than 3%! – but opposes stimulus.
This isn’t just a problem way down on the radio dial. It happens all over.
Conservatives have been bloviating aboutthebudget and liberal spending when they know – or should know – that government spending stimulates the economy. And until the public itself knows where economic growth comes from (hint: government spending is a source of economic growth!), they’ll be content with such politics as usual.
During an economic downturn we need to see government spending for what it is: an opportunity to stimulate the economy in the short term and help Americans get back on their feet. Let’s be conservative with our finances when times are good. And let’s be liberal when times are bad. Krugman, an economist, agrees. Lots.
I can’t remember where I saw the video – but a Fox News employee was recently on the air discussing the health care reform bill. He said, in so many words, that it wouldn’t allow some states to opt out. Here’s my question: why, from a policy perspective, should the Dems allow any state to opt out? Can’t individuals do that already? Isn’t that why its called a public option?
Here’s an article about an analysis of the public option. Bottom line: only 2% of Americans will use it because of the way its written.
So, if you’re unempoyed, work for a really small company or by yourself, or think the insurance you get through your work place sucks – then you’ve got a 98% chance that the public option won’t help.
