"zadoc" wrote in message
...

Note that Galbraith wasn't talking the figure for a single year, it
was for all years since WW2. He was also quoting the Brookings
Institute and obviously believes their figures or he wouldn't have
quoted them.

Of course. All economists quote the figures they believe.

But, as Harry Truman used to say, what we need is some one-armed economists.
"My economists are always telling me, on the one hand, but then on the other
hand..." g

The experts and Gailbraith know far more than we do
about such statistics, and I, for one, see no reason to question the
estimates.

As someone who spent nearly a year of his life researching for some articles
on world trade, talking daily to top economists in and out of government, I
wouldn't believe any estimates from any of them.

Galbraith is (was, actually) an expert on price theory, price controls,
monopoly and oligopoly, and theories of money. That's enough to put on an
economist's late for a lifetime, but it's still a very small slice of
economics.

Others probably will, but I suggest that anyone who wants
to question them carefully read, or listen, to the full interview.

After all, Gailbraith has far more experience, and more Ph.D.s, than
anyone on this group.

He's too old. His last book (I've read most of his books) was the work of a
somewhat enfeebled man. It made me sad, because I enjoyed his writing more
than that of any other economist.

There is much better introductory writing today on economics for the layman.

But Galbraith is old, and remembers when we didn't count SS in the
budget
(pre-1965, I think). In those terms, if you accept the (probably
twisted)
statistics of the anti-war crowd, military spending in total looks like
48%
of the budget. I seriously doubt if it's that high.

I don't. I've heard about the $500 toilet seats before, and thought
the figure was higher than that actually.

You heard that around 25 years ago...or you did, if you were listening at
the time. It's now ensconced among the legends of economic polemics in the
US.

What you're actually looking at is artifacts of accounting. There are
hundreds of them. Toilet seats and hammers became journalists' favorites
because they produce a resounding thud when used in an article.

However even a $600 toilet seat sounds extravagent to me. Let alone
the hammers at $171.50. Still, have seen a whole _lot_ of surplus
gear that struck me as vastly overpriced.

Of course. I used to have a WWII National Radio Jeep transceiver, that I
kept just to look at. The entire inside of the thing was silver plated. g

If any reader isn't convinced, and the US military is still disposing
of their surplus gear by bidding list, lay your hands on a few and
check the cost pricing. They used to send them out for nothing on
request.

I think most of us here have been doing that since we were little kids. I
quit when I decided I had enough junk.


So, pick the numbers you want to fight with, and go for it. Just keep in
mind that no one will believe any of it. g

Some on this group would disbelieve [or believe] anything which
confirmed to their wishes and preconceptions. :-)

Most would.


And paying interest on the rapidly rising deficits? Don't
forget to repay the borrowings from the Social Security system.
And as interest rates rise ...

When you pull enough together to produce a fresh idea on the American
economy, let us know. Right now you're dabbling with the playthings of
propagandists and polemicists. They aren't for beginners.


I don't have time at the moment to chase down construction and
maintainence cost for the joint US/Russian space station but I do know
that many think it hasn't justified its construction and the money
could have been far better spent elsewhere.

Many can be gathered to claim that expenditures on anything could have been
better spent elsewhere. It's a national sport.

--
Ed Huntress