I didn't select anything except the maximum for that chart site, which as 30 years.
Even if it wasn't deliberate, the data you selected is highly distorted to support your case. Both the stock market and military spending where low in the late 70s. Your reason for selecting the data may indeed be entirely without bias, but the data itself is not representative, your reason doesn't really matter.
You select 2 years. Give me a break.
No I linked to 60+ years of data for the most important point.
The two years just shows how the foreign sales is a minor factor compared to US military spending, and isn't large enough to be significant in the context of this discussion. I've shown how it doesn't matter what number you plug in for previous years. Put any positive number in for earlier years and my case just gets stronger, and the number can not be negative.
Are you 1 - Not paying any attention, 2 - Not capable of understanding how growth from any positive number, is lower than growth from zero, if the end number is the same, or 3 - Intellectually dishonest?
7 companies that could have been 70 is just smoke. And (big) if it were true, 140 companies "could have" (and probably did) replace the 70.
No its not smoke. There has been massive consolidation in the defense industry. The big companies have bought out dozens of little and medium sized companies, and merged with other big companies.
I don't know that its was specifically 70. I don't have that level of precision, but its more likely to be more than 70 than less, and it isn't less than the dozens range.
If your going to make arguments about the defense industry you should obtain some knowledge about what's happened with that industry. Apparently you either are ignorant about it, or you know the facts but refuse to recognize them unless someone can detail every tiny bit of that history. |
