Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

> In addition, a national economy that cannot itself produce the things it 
> needs and invests instead in military "security" will eventually find 
> itself in a position in which it has to use its military constantly to 
> take, or threaten to take, from others what it cannot provide for itself, 
> which in turn leads to what Yale historian Paul Kennedy has described as 
> "imperial overstretch":
>
> "[T]hat is to say, decision-makers in Washington must face the awkward and 
> enduring fact that the sum total of the United States' global interests 
> and obligations is nowadays far larger than the country's power to defend 
> them all simultaneously."

I think that is a false premise if it refers to the U.S.A. Whether oil, 
coffee or bananas, producers sell to whoever can pay the highest price. 
Using oil as the prime test, a country like Saudi Arabia would need a huge 
military, if the non-productive premise were true. As for our military, I 
think that while we spend much more than other countries, it is less than 
five percent of GNP.