Jonathan M Feldman’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Cutting the Military Budget and Political Reality

  http://www.counterpunch.org/feldman08232008.html

  Dear Colleagues,

  I have covered this in my recent article (cited above), but there is so much confusion about this issue that it warrants some special attention. It is important to cut the military budget to fund environmental security and divert resources into new technologies, etc.  The military is a big polluter also in case no one has noticed.  Wars are not good for human health. In Africa, about 5 million or more have died from war-related causes in the post-war era.  War is a big environmental problem because it does damage to the environment of peoples' bodies/families/homes.

  Country and Year   
  Estimated Total War Deaths   

  Sudan (Anya Nya rebellion) 1963-73    250,000-750,000   

  Nigeria (Biafra)1967-1970   
  500,000-2 million     

  Angola 1975-2002   
  1.5 million     

  Sudan 1983-2002   
  2 million   

  Democratic Republic Congo 1998-2001   
  2.5 million   

  Source: Bethany Lacina and Nils Petter Gleditsch, "Monitoring Trends in Global Combat: A New Dataset of Battle Deaths," European Journal of Population, Vol. 21, 2005: 145-166.

  The US is not necessarily to blame for this, but the money the US does not spend on a more coherent international relations system is to blame. Also, the U.S. exports a lot of weapons which contributes to the cycle of violence (as do the Russians).

  Anyway, some key points:

  First, this idea that more military spending gives us more security as a result is simply a lie.  The US spends a lot on the military, but on 9-11 this did not protect the biggest city in New York.  What gives?  You can say that politically many believe in the lie.  But, why is that so?
  This brings me to point two.

  Second, the groups usually "in charge of" making the military budget smaller and often mis-guided in how they do what they do. They have not had an easy time under Bush as you have noted.  But, they have not been so smart in leveraging their resources (see my article that is linked at the end of the cited one above, i.e. http://www.counterpunch.org/feldman01082008.html.

  Third, the idea that it is politically impossible to cut the military question begs the question.  The real question is how do you win the fight to cut the military budget. Please consider that one needs new international relations agreements. Please check out President Kennedy's speech on all this (cited in the article above).  

  Fourth, delaying the military budget question will create massive obstacles for the sustainability cause.  If environmentalists are indifferent to this fight because they think the environment is a bigger problem, then how do you deal with the: (a) budget deficit and rhetoric around that and (b) the 3 trillion dollar Iraq War as bottlenecks to SPENDING AT THE RATE YOU NEED MONEY SPENT for alternative means of sustainable production and technology and transport?  50 billion won't cut it even if it is a good start.

  Fifth and finally, if there is any one out there who is in the advertising business, I can point out how to create advertisements which could be broadcast to point out all these necessary connections, e.g. start with running soundbites from Kennedy's speech. Show the budget trade offs   caused by Iraq.  Show how the South can produce bombs but lacks water, etc. etc. etc. That is a no-brainer.  As for Al Qaeda and Kennedy not being around for that...well, consider how the Iraq war has worsened the terrorist threat according to US intelligence agencies and run some advertisements about that.On Output-based carbon regulations ignore critical types of efficiency posted 1 year, 2 months ago 21 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Defeatism About the Military Budget

  I will add two points:

  First, the idea that conversion does not work.
  This is basically nonsense.  Badly designed conversion does not work. Defense firms have succeeded and failed in moving into civilian markets. I have documented both through case studies of firms in the USA, Sweden and the UK.  I can send the very interested reader references.  Just contact me at the www.economicreconstruction.com home page.
  Or, look at my prior posts.  

  The political will is absent argument is faulty for five key reasons.  First, if we continue to spend on the military like we have, the US economy's accelerated downward spin into a Third World economy is guarateed.  This means greater outsourcing of white and blue collar jobs. This means greater than the 17% poverty rate in the USA (I don't have the last figures). This means more backlash terrorism and military interventions and wasted spending and accelerate depletion because cutting the military weakens the forces of those engaging in military adventurism.

  Second, the limits to military power, its failure to achieve security, creates a political opening for conversion and demilitarization.

  Third, all new social programs will be limited by debt and budget shortages.  We are ALREADY BORROWING BILLIONS FROM the Japanese and Chinese to pay for the military budget. Those who don't want to cut the military budget are basically saying they want a subsidize Japan and China program. You want to raise upper class taxes fine.    But, the debt is too big probably to just do that. Why not enlist the upper class elites to cut the military budget.

  Fourth, the real question is not taking on the military industrial complex but changing the strategies of those already against the military industrial complex and warfare state.  The wrong strategy is to make an alliance with the Pentagon, just google "The Strange Political Economy of Death in the South."

  Fifth, Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire by only about 8,000 votes.  Why?  Well her votes on the military and foreign policy questions were not really explained.  She and Obama have pluses and minuses, but as a peace candidate, Hillary Clinton would have a lot of work to do I think.  For evidence, go here:  

  (1) http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13675&t ...
  (2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/obama-clinton ...
  (3)  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/hillarys-calc ...

  So, it would have been logical for peace organizations to rally in New Hampshire to ask her challenging questions.  That step would not have required the miltiary industrial complex to be dismantled first or even for the Pentagon to give up a single dime. This strategy would require the readers of blogs to actually organize, rather than do what amounts to exchanging a few emails and sitting on their hands.  If you want details, go to the http://counterpunch.com/feldman01082008.html
  blog.

  The basic fatalism of some people that nothing can be changed is at least being tackled by Obama even if he is elected and does not do much.  He is putting the idea into peoples' heads that they make a difference.  That is very important.On Converting the permanent military economy to a green economy posted 1 year, 9 months ago 41 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Economic Conversion

  This is really the missing issue in the elections.
  What we need is a political process to make it a reality.  Something between the Democratic Party (which with a few notable exceptions has done nothing much about it in recent times) and a Third Party (which has pluses and minuses):
  http://counterpunch.com/feldman01082008.htmlOn Converting the permanent military economy to a green economy posted 1 year, 9 months ago 41 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  More on buy local, etc..

  The existence of the market has long depended on state intervention in key regions, see for example
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation
  or read about the role of state directed organization of economies in China, Japan, South Korea, etc.

  At one point, a country like China is going to develop a huge internal market, if it is able to have an equitable redistribution of wealth.  Federations of smaller states will similarly reproduce some scale economies.

  As for smaller, developing nations needing exports, let us not forget that part of this pattern involved distortions (shrinking) of subsistence crops and problems associated with hunger for many of the masses, while native elites grew rich on the exports.  This was the pattern in Central America.

  I don't believe in all of the arguments related to "self reliance" because there are advantages to trade, even in some regulated form.  There are so many ways in which really existing trade is regulated, however, that there are serious limits to the "freedom" in trade, e.g. protectionist measures.On We don't need to destroy our economy to save the planet posted 2 years ago 79 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The "Free" Market?

  I think some of why Mr. Avent says makes sense, but I don't quite understand this argument about the free market.

  Much of the market is already planned.

  First, take a look at the history of the "Gunbelt" in the United States (see the book, "The Rise of the Gunbelt").  Military location was dictated by politics and somewhat by the attempts to gain access to cheap labor and land, but often by location in Congressional districts with powerful politicians.  The organization of military firms and the subsidies to military (and increasingly biotech) firms each are guided by federal R&D procurement and R&D choices.  This means that politics will influence location decisions.

  Second, the highway system was subsidized by the state, helping to decentralize or scatter residences.

  Third, if you really think the market works well, see the film, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" or "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price."  The former shows the devastating policies of ill advised corporate planners and government regulators.  The latter how low prices help devastate communities and workers.

  Fourth, the idea that a badly planned state is the alternative to free markets is really a straw man that we can easily dispense with.  I don't think Jon Rynn is talking about that.  The issue is rather that government and firms can both be badly or well planned. More on that later.On We don't need to destroy our economy to save the planet posted 2 years ago 79 Responses