Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site godot.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!bruce From: bruce@godot.UUCP (Bruce Nemnich) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Fuzzy headed liberal Message-ID: <365@godot.UUCP> Date: Sun, 4-Nov-84 01:49:30 EST Article-I.D.: godot.365 Posted: Sun Nov 4 01:49:30 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 03:36:44 EST References: <570@loral.UUCP> <483@pucc-k> <837@teddy.UUCP> Reply-To: bruce@godot.UUCP (Bruce Nemnich) Organization: Thinking Machines, Cambridge, MA Lines: 26 Summary: In article <837@teddy.UUCP> slf@teddy.UUCP (Scott Fisher) writes: > Mondale would have us make some sort of an agreement with the > Soviets to limit production of nukes. Shocking. :-) > A side point to disarmament is the economy. Where do you > think we get these weapons? Do you think we buy them from the > U.S.S.R. or Japan? The answer is they are made right here in the > U.S.A.. Building up of weapons builds the economy. More > demand for weapons means more jobs, less people on the unemployment > line, and more people with money to spend. And from where, pray tell, do you think these people derive their income? The money goes from one segment of the population to another. There is no more money, or, more accurately, there is no additional comsumable product, so how does it improve the economy? On the other hand, if you left the money in the private sector where it would be creating demand for consumables, it would result in higher employment and production of goods which contribute to the standard of living. The marginal utility derived (by me, anyway) from additional warheads is quite low. -- --Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA ihnp4!godot!bruce, bjn@mit-mc.arpa ... soon to be bruce@godot.arpa!