Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (133348)	10/23/2001 3:57:32 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Interesting. We are finally back to pre-Cold War levels, but still above what we were spending before we stuck our noses into Europe's business in WWII. Let's see, the steepest cuts under 8% came under Pat's old boss, Dick Nixon, and under the other tricky-dick, Clinton. Difference is, under Clinton the economy was growing very quickly, so the booming GDP may have skewed the percentage. Interesting, though, that the two most disliked/least trusted Presidents of the post-WWII era may have had the greatest negative impact on our military strength. So, what's the magic number and how should it be spent? PS: Could some of the recent decline be evidence of productivity improvements in defense? Or perhaps less tying up of taxpayer capital in inventories of nukes we could never use? Maybe we've been intervening in other states' sovereign affairs less often than we did in the '50s and '60s? Hmm. So many questions. What's that saying about a simple answer for everything?