Re: Qaeda at Work (was the Iraqi resistance at work)
On Nov 21, 2006, at 7:11 PM, www.leninology. blogspot.com wrote:
>
Doug wrote:
Because they really believed their own propaganda. Because they were a small, self-reinforcing circle of know-it-alls. They didn’t listen to people who knew anything because they thought it was going to be a “cakewalk.” Remember? I didn’t think this was controversial, but evidently it is to some.
I remember that this was Bush administration propaganda: this was
certainly how they sold it. But why assume that their idea of a ‘cakewalk’
is the same as yours? And why assume that was their first priority at any rate?
There have been any number of memoirs from former admin officials
telling us just how crapheadedly stupid every aspect of this
administration has been. Are all those just bullshit?
I don’t doubt that there is an element of hubris, but this is not
because of Iraq being divided and weak: on the contrary, this much has helped to delay the day on which they will be scampering for helicopters on
the roof of the embassy.Huh? Federal nonmilitary spending is 2.3% of GDP, unchanged since the mid/late 1990s, and below what it was when Daddy Bush left office (2.5% - Clinton took it down to 2.1% in 1997, and it rose to 2.2% as he was heading for the exit).
You said “state investment.” It wasn’t civilian.
But that’s missing the point: the US government knows as have every government since world war two that massive armaments expenditure stimulates growth and also diminishes the tendency of profit rates
to be squeezed by the overaccumulation of capital.
I know that’s the received wisdom, but it isn’t really true. The
profit rate peaked in the US in 1966, and it was not propped up by
the increase in military spending to fund the Vietnam war.
Profitability rose nicely during the 1990s even as the military share
of GDP was falling to its lowest level since before WW II. That’s not
to say they’re inversely correlated; it’s probably truer to say
there’s little or no relation at all.
By the way, while everyone knows that military spending has increased
in the Bush years, almost no one seems aware of the composition of
that spending. Since the first quarter of 2001, the military share of
GDP rose by 0.8 point, from 3.8% to 4.6%. Half that increase (0.4
point) comes from “purchased services” - R&D and “personnel
support” (e.g. KBR running bases and such). Another 0.2 point comes
from higher salaries for military personnel. Almost 0.1 point comes
from higher petroleum purchases. The share devoted to weapons
procurement is up just 0.1 point, and that is for equipment other
than “Aircraft, Missiles, Ships, Vehicles, Electronics and software.”
The share of the named items is unchanged.
In other words, this has been good for a few firms - and it’s been
heavily concentrated in a few geographical regions, like northern
Virginia. It’s not done much to raise the overall profit rate, which
has been done the old-fashioned way - intensified exploitation.
Productivity is way up and wages are flat.
Doug