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!