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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (42903)	9/9/2002 6:44:22 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Von Mises Institute is a reputable link. I have not read the book mentioned, but certainly would like to. Well, I wasn't particularly impressed with the review or the title of that book "Merchants of Death".. How can we blame "sellers" (investment banks) for selling something that investors want?? For that matter, how can arms companies thrive without willing customers for their deadly products?? It's not like anyone can force someone to buy something they already want. The only thing a "seller" is guilty of might be making the terms too good and persuading the customer that they need even more of the product. In particular, this quote indicates a particular bias: "Investment bankers do much of their business underwriting government bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt. Both sets of bankers [i.e., commercial and investment], then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government action in domestic and foreign affairs" (p. 1). My belief is that investment banks really don't care whether they are selling government or corporate bonds. All they demand is liquidity and a measure of security and collateral. And the collateral of Govt bonds is the ability of the Fed to print more money and devalue the USD. And since deficit spending, when abused, is essentially inflationary, that is bad for bond portfolios. Additionally, investment banks make nifty profits off of equity IPOs, a market in which the government doesn't participate. There might be some manipulation that occurs on a macro-scale, but opine that it only goes just so far, to the point where powerful interests diverge. As to who is "pulling" GWB's strings, I'd wager he's doing a bit of pulling on his own part. And sometimes having economic interests "pulling political strings" is beneficial, as seen when businessman warned India's government that they were going to move out of that country if they didn't tone down the rhetoric. Hawk

To: maceng2 who wrote (42903)	9/10/2002 12:03:16 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Von Mises is reputable. Murray Rothbard is less so, in my opinion. I say so based on my own research on two issues that he has written about, the history of the Great Depression, and the history of money. He is, unfortunately, a lightweight when it comes to history. Careless and superficial in his research. He's ok if you just want a broad overview, so I wouldn't advise against reading him. He's got some interesting ideas. With respect to the issue you raise, the inter-relationship between government and what Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex," there is no question that some corporations make a lot of money by providing what is needed to wage war. But I suggest to you that it is short-sighted to focus on the armament industry alone. Think of all the billions which have been spent on the Internet, computers, telecommunication devices. Think of all the billions which have been spent on the interstate highway system. Think of all the billions which have been spent stockpiling petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Think of all the money that's being spent on clever devices for scanning faces at airports, or smallpox vaccine. The United States federal government budget is in the range of $2 trillion annually. US GDP is in the range of $10 trillion annually, so the feds spend about 20% of US GDP. That's an amazing amount of money. In 1929, a year I know fairly well, US GDP was about $12 million. A lot has changed since then, hasn't it?