To: tekboy who wrote (50843 ) 10/10/2002 12:34:59 PM From: JohnM Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500 I don't buy your first point, since we're not in fact "devoting so much money to military matters" on a relative basis--defense spending as a share of GNP has dropped significantly since the end of the Cold War, and even recent increases won't bring it up near where it was. As Paul Kennedy has noted, what is astonishing about contemporary American geopolitical dominance is that it's being done NOT through massive extraction and deployment of domestic power reserves for military purposes. We've just grown so much (in absolute and relative terms) that even a less-than-dramatic defense spending rate is enough to make us tower over everybody else. In short, we could afford the domestic stuff you want to purchase if there was political will to provide it, which there isn't. The guns and butter argument. Well, for what it's worth, that first point is not yet an argument, just the sketch of one. I'll let you know when it's formed. Moreover, what is striking is not that it's a clinching counter argument but that it's being left out of the famous, if disturbing, cost-benefit calculations. That's what I'm calling the shift in political cultures. Calling it a lack of political will is not quite enough. I simply don't see it as politically possible because there has been such a shift. However, the shift in culture lasts only so long as folk are not talking about it. It is a tradeoff since, unfortunately, until someone reverses some information about resources, they are zero sum. As the politicians tell us, well, we just can't afford to take care of the social security crisis down the road? Hmmm. On the oil argument, I just need to read a great deal.