Weapons 8% of US exports of durable goods, up from 3% in 2000 | Hacker News Reader

Weapons 8% of US exports of durable goods, up from 3% in 2000

boingboing.net

32 pointsFlemlord23 comments

I don't know that the chart is misleading, as it states that the graph is indicating percent growth. It could probably be made clearer though.

I think it's the article that's misleading, especially with a title that declares something like that. Also, it's a durable goods chart. It says nothing about the non-durable exports, such as foodstuff. So the article is misleading because the US doesn't only export durable goods.

How come no one is deriding boingboing for their poor journalism, like the techcrunch article about google maps, sweden, and greenhouse gases?

The Techcrunch phenomenon was more groupthink than anything else.

Isn't BoingBoing basically an entertainment site? I think the standards are different for a site like TechCrunch that represents itself as a legitimate competitor to mainstream journalism. Isn't BoingBoing more of an entertainment site? As soon as I see stories about Spiderman, World of Warcraft, jetpacks, and Cheezy Poofs mixed in with something that kind of looks like journalism I immediately know how to judge it.

yes, but I still expect my entertainment site to be able to read charts and graphs.

That graph shows a %age change, not absolute numbers. Linkbait...

Indeed. The antiderivative, the actual production, has that pesky "+ c" term, which is different for the "military" and "non-military" graphs.

So this article is basically meaningless, and I've flagged it.

You mean a "x c" term (the graph is of a percentage rate).

Ah, I didn't catch that. That makes the graphs even less informative.

"Lies, damn lies and statitistics..."

Agreed. If you are interested just read the original: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/economy/01charts....

I'm not American, but I don't see the problem here. Why would you want to be producing polluting hunks of metal if you can avoid it?

As far as the Toynbee "plunder economy" quote goes, I don't find it applicable simply because the American Empire doesn't seem to be very good at extracting tribute from conquered territories. The success of the United States is built on something completely else. For recent examples, compare the economic benefits of the Iraq conquest to those of having Google in your country -- private innovation triumphs over imperialism as an economic engine.

He goes on to quote Toynbee on Rome: "The economy of the Empire was basically a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on booty from conquered territories... With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry.

A highly misleading chart, as it shows growth rate but the discussion centers around the overall economy. That doesn't reflect the actual composition of the GDP, just what has grown over that period of time. I suspect that military spending, while a significant chunk of the US economy, does not dwarf all other sectors combined as in the way some people are reading it.

I would love to know what is being plundered that is supposedly being used to build all this military stuff.

I am pretty sure we buy our oil.

"Give money for" != "buy"

Instead of "buy", it should say "are raped by the producers in exchange for".

The Iraq war was probably less about cheap oil and more about propping up government contractors, with a good amount of "let's not admit we are clueless" thrown in for good measure.

Yep. If cheap oil was the goal then we can conclude that it did not work. You could have bought quite a few barrels of oil in return for the money sunk in the iraq war.

Ah, but remember that the net present value of an annuity is based on what that annuity truly turns out to be. If there's a point even in ten years where oil has severe scarcity, it will pay off quite well.

But I don't think it's about that. I think that, unlike most countries, the American infrastructure is utterly and completely dependent on oil. It's its lifeblood. In my opinion, it's about concerns for the future and securing a resource that's vital for the survival of the entire nation.

Comparisons to the modern US aside, that's a pretty misguided analysis of Rome. The territories whose loss cost Rome the most economically were Africa and Gaul, and calling them 'conquered territories' is like calling Texas and California the US's 'conquered territories.' At some point in the distant past they were conquered, but their inhabitants considered themselves Romans, and the Roman government reciprocated. Rome didn't 'plunder' 'booty' from Africa any more than we 'plunder' produce from California.

You have to remember this is BoingBoing. They were never ones to let facts and logic get in the way of a good rant or questionable puff piece. They are basically the Fox news of the digerati...

"The United States remains primarily a civilian economy. The military now takes about 8 percent of all durable goods, up from 3 percent in 2000."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/economy/01charts....

Weapons are classified as "durable goods"? :-)

Until you use them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com