BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:19:53 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:27:00 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:34:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote:

Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to
produce things like tanks, bombers, etc?

That has not happened for 65 years. When it did it was a government
contract that put idle factories back to work. For the last 50 years
tanks, bombers and missiles have been a profit center. The
manufacturers develop a system, bribe enough congressmen to get it
adopted and then try to convince the military it is really what they
need.

That is not unlike how the drug companies work.

So, with such a great economy, I guess it doesn't make much sense to
put people to work... ?

I don't think people were being bribed to produce armaments in WWII..
at least not most.

They were certainly making a lot of money tho.

Depends on your definition of "a lot of money." The primary motivation
was survival both financially and physically (the result of losing the
war).

WWII was an instant end of the depression for the US.

And, your point?

I don't think we can actually compare the buying of the congress in
the 40s like we do now. There were certainly the earmark bribes but
you did not have billion dollar ad campaign costs (even adjusted for
inflation)

I agree. You can't compare the two, however earmarks are not the
terrible thing you make them out to be. Some are wasteful, but many
actually do good at the local level.