Boeing Plans to Move Headquarters to Arlington, Va., From Chicago

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Again, this all started way before Reagan. The term military industrial complex was coined in early 1960s, and by that time it has been already going on for a while.

I'm not specifically talking about the military-industrial complex term on which you are fixating.

Originally Posted by Obadno

That's just completely wrong there have been federal government contractors since literally the revolution but besides that the government structure as it exists today and the power they have and interconnectedness of the federal beurocracy and big business is, if anything, a legacy of FDR's era and the US as it was reformed between 1918-1948 between Wilson and Truman.

I never claimed that there were not fed govt contractors prior to the Reagan era, nor was I talking about origins of "govt/big business interconnectedness".

I was agreeing with yours and Crawford's posts:

Originally Posted by Obadno

Lets be real, these defense companies are essentially creations of the federal government.

Originally Posted by Crawford

So many huge corps are just extensions of the federal govt.

Whether one wants to refer to them as "creations" or "extensions", this situation became solidified during the Reagan administration, which presided over the largest peacetime build-up of military force in history -- this is a fact.

Reagan admin accomplished this via a massive and aggressive privatization strategy utilizing the Commercial Activities Program, which had not been used previously.

That's why I stated in relation to all of this... It has everything to do with the hallmark of the Reagan administration... massive defense buildup/huge Pentagon budgets/privatization of defense spending, and the resulting ubiquity and pervasiveness of cost-plus government contracts and federal deficits.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I'm not specifically talking about the military-industrial complex term on which you are fixating.

I never claimed that there were not fed govt contractors prior to the Reagan era, nor was I talking about origins of "govt/big business interconnectedness".

I was agreeing with yours and Crawford's posts:


Whether one wants to refer to them as "creations" or "extensions", this situation became solidified during the Reagan administration, which presided over the largest peacetime build-up of military force in history -- this is a fact.

Reagan admin accomplished this via a massive and aggressive privatization strategy utilizing the Commercial Activities Program, which had not been used previously.

That's why I stated in relation to all of this... It has everything to do with the hallmark of the Reagan administration... massive defense buildup/huge Pentagon budgets/privatization of defense spending, and the resulting ubiquity and pervasiveness of cost-plus government contracts and federal deficits.

And we keep telling you that your interpretation of history is demonstrably false. "Largest peacetime expansion" is a nice qualifier you used, so you can omit WW2, Korean war, and Vietnam war. At the peak of Reagan's presidency, military spending was still lower than 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s, and by the time Reagan left office it was almost at a historic low as % of GDP. These quasi corporate-government companies well predated Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or any other modern president. They largely began with FDR in the 1930s, were really created and expanded in the 1940s during WW2, and by 1960 were entrenched in the government system completely. This is when all these corporate campuses around suburban DC and Pentagon were built. Well before Reagan.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I'm not specifically talking about the military-industrial complex term on which you are fixating.



I never claimed that there were not fed govt contractors prior to the Reagan era, nor was I talking about origins of "govt/big business interconnectedness".

I was agreeing with yours and Crawford's posts:





Whether one wants to refer to them as "creations" or "extensions", this situation became solidified during the Reagan administration, which presided over the largest peacetime build-up of military force in history -- this is a fact.

Reagan admin accomplished this via a massive and aggressive privatization strategy utilizing the Commercial Activities Program, which had not been used previously.

That's why I stated in relation to all of this... It has everything to do with the hallmark of the Reagan administration... massive defense buildup/huge Pentagon budgets/privatization of defense spending, and the resulting ubiquity and pervasiveness of cost-plus government contracts and federal deficits.

You are simply wrong and also giving Reagan, somebody you clearly dislike, a way larger influence than he actually had. Furthermore you seem to think the US military built its own weapons and armaments before 1980 which is insane. Weapons companies and government contractors have existed since before the the American colonies. Governments dont manufacture arms. They simply pay for others to R&D and manufacture on their behalf.

Not to mention whatever millitary buildup you think Reagan did it was nothing compared to the Iraq years and today we have some of the lowest deployments since before WW2 internationally.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not really. They were an island, massively supplied by U.S., facing a distracted attacking enemy that was fighting on three or four fronts.

The fact that they are an island only helped them back to the Napoleonic wars when France was ruling Europe.
They acted as cynical cowards at that time indeed. The Germans, the Austrians and the Russians who were facing France's Grande Armée eventually called the English a bunch of cowards hidden on their island while they were humiliated by emperor Napoléon.

But obviously, WWII was something 150 years later and very different. Ideologies at stake were not the same at all. France was basically defending the Republican ideals in the early 19th century.

In fact, the English were brave and very smart on the occasion of WWII. It's not an easy thing for a Frenchman to admit, because we were defeated in May/June of 1940 while everybody in the world thought we were invincible and my grandpa who was a captain in the army had to spend almost 5 years in a prison in Germany.

We're not going to discuss this whole thing here. Just speak the truth.
"Mauvaise foi" (literally bad faith or lying) is not appreciated here.
Don't do it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mousquet

We're not going to discuss this whole thing here. Just speak the truth.
"Mauvaise foi" (literally bad faith or lying) is not appreciated here.
Don't do it.

Sorry, not gonna agree. I'm not agreeing that Great Britain, almost without question the most powerful military on earth for the previous 125-150 years or so, showed extraordinary skill in holding off the Germans, when the Germans were fighting on multiple fronts, and the Brits were just holding their (island) nation.

It would have been incredible if Germany had simultaneously taken the UK, while holding North Africa, cleaning up after the Italian failures, maintaining Western Europe and conquering Eastern Europe and then the Soviets. Even if Hitler weren't idiotically overruling his generals, probably an impossible task.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not really. They were an island, massively supplied by U.S., facing a distracted attacking enemy that was fighting on three or four fronts.

I think history would disagree with you here; they were pretty much on their own and held off a more formidable power even if the latter ultimately made a fatal tactical error with Barbarossa. Had the Germans not invaded the Soviets, there was no guarantee the entire Allied force would have won; D-Day could have wound up very different had Hitler help up his deal with Stalin.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Gantz

And we keep telling you that your interpretation of history is demonstrably false. "Largest peacetime expansion" is a nice qualifier you used, so you can omit WW2, Korean war, and Vietnam war. At the peak of Reagan's presidency, military spending was still lower than 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s, and by the time Reagan left office it was almost at a historic low as % of GDP. These quasi corporate-government companies well predated Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or any other modern president. They largely began with FDR in the 1930s, were really created and expanded in the 1940s during WW2, and by 1960 were entrenched in the government system completely. This is when all these corporate campuses around suburban DC and Pentagon were built. Well before Reagan.

The peacetime aspect is what makes it novel. It should be emphasized because the nation was not involved in a war. Yet, spending levels were not seen since we were in active war in Korea and Vietnam, and it lasted longer than either of those wars.

I never claimed that everything began with Reagan. The Regan administration solidified it as the norm, and the Clinton admin continued full neoliberal policy in this area.

All these corporate campuses formed around DC by 1960? Are you seriously claiming this?

[Crawford]

Tysons Corner was basically a country outpost in 1960. I don't think the whole NoVa defense contractor megagrowth happened until the 1980's. Of course the Reagan administration wasn't the only contributing factor, but it was a significant one.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Tysons Corner was basically a country outpost in 1960. I don't think the whole NoVa defense contractor megagrowth happened until the 1980's. Of course the Reagan administration wasn't the only contributing factor, but it was a significant one.

NOVA had huge growth right after WW2 all through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and then picked up again in the 1990s.
Believe it or not during Reagan's administration, NOVA experienced one of the slowest growth in the last 80 years.

[Obadno]

As I said earlier in the thread there has not been single post WW2 president or congress that has significantly changed the way the nation operates.

There's been fiddling with tax rates and regulatory bodies but the basic systems we have today is the same as what was put in place during WW2.

Any problem you think is the "cause" of a postwar president or congress is just partisan attacks and bickering within a system that's been largely the same for 75 years.

Stems from a very inflated view of how much influence most presidents actually have which is not very much. Hell the only significant things done in the US since the Civil Rights act has had to be the result of Supreme Court decisions because the democratic part of our political system has ceded all power to the beurocracy; again a function that grew out of the 1930's and 1940's

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Gantz

NOVA had huge growth right after WW2 all through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and then picked up again in the 1990s.

Believe it or not during Reagan's administration, NOVA experienced one of the slowest growth in the last 80 years.

Nope, don't believe that at all. Fairfax County boomed during and after the Reagan administration. Check the population numbers. That's when the "contractor arm" of the US government proliferated.

[jmecklenborg]

^I have read some speculative writing from 1943 and 1944 when there was no way to anticipate the complete victory over Germany and Japan. There was a significant fear that Germany would sign and armistice and continue to hold Austria, Poland, parts of France, etc., and then mount a significant effort against the United States via South America and especially Mexico. This would have consisted of shutting the U.S. out of those markets more so than overt physical attacks, since as we all know that an overland attack from Mexico wouldn't have worked.

There was the very real possibility that the four major powers through the mid or even late 20th century would have been the United States, Germany (+much of central Europe and puppets in the Americas), Russia (Soviets), and Japan (occupying Korea and much of China). I doubt that situation would have resolved itself peacefully.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Nope, don't believe that at all. Fairfax County boomed during and after the Reagan administration. Check the population numbers. That's when the "contractor arm" of the US government proliferated.

I've seen 1970's-era pics of Arlington and Tysons. There's no way in hell NoVa didn't have a gigantic 1980's boom, at least in terms of new commercial space.

I'd wager that the region's office space doubled during that decade.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

^I have read some speculative writing from 1943 and 1944 when there was no way to anticipate the complete victory over Germany and Japan. There was a significant fear that Germany would sign and armistice and continue to hold Austria, Poland, parts of France, etc., and then mount a significant effort against the United States via South America and especially Mexico. This would have consisted of shutting the U.S. out of those markets more so than overt physical attacks, since as we all know that an overland attack from Mexico wouldn't have worked.

There was the very real possibility that the four major powers through the mid or even late 20th century would have been the United States, Germany (+much of central Europe and puppets in the Americas), Russia (Soviets), and Japan (occupying Korea and much of China). I doubt that situation would have resolved itself peacefully.

A multi polar world like that would have been the norm throughout time. The Bi-polar world of 1945-1991 was very strange and the Uni-polar world of 1991- Now ish was VERY uncommon.

If you talk to most geopolitical types and historians they see our modern situation as a breakdown of the Unipolar world which is very uncommon back to a multi polar world for various reasons ranging from economics, to demographics to political changes etc.

The Cold War and Post Cold war has allowed for Places in Asia primarily (but other parts of the world) to "catch up" so to speak and now we live in a much more complicated but historically normal situation of lots of various local and regional powers with interests and wealth to throw around and impact how the world works. A very different situation from 1950 when there were essentially two powers an everyone else was rebuilding or irrelevant.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I've seen 1970's-era pics of Arlington and Tysons. There's no way in hell NoVa didn't have a gigantic 1980's boom, at least in terms of new commercial space.

I'd wager that the region's office space doubled during that decade.

You can look at almost anywhere from 50 years ago and see a massive expansion. The 1980's cold war "build up" (highly exaggerated) is not the reason. I would suspect Lobbying firms and various NGO offices make up more of the boom than defense contractors.

[pj3000]

Yeah, lobbying firms and various NGO offices like General Dynamics, CACI, Booz Allen, Bechtel, Lockheed...

[Velvet_Highground]

Boeing had a history of building quality and had a positive feedback loop between workers on the ground and executives after the McDonnell - Douglass merger this changed when McDonnell - Douglas exec’s took over management things changed. There was a emphasis on returns for investors placed above all the relocation to Chicago was apparently meant to separate the top management from engineers so decisions could be made to increase profitability without pressure (especially if safety cuts were being made).

Reagan’s image has flipped back and forth due to the conflicting nature of his legacy but it’s not hard to point to the whole hearted embrace of the market as the big innovation of his tenure. The effect this has had on American manufacturing alone is catastrophic you go from Allen Mullally’s to Roger Moore’s in charge of our biggest and most storied companies with decidedly undesirable results.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, lobbying firms and various NGO offices like General Dynamics, CACI, Booz Allen, Bechtel, Lockheed...

Obviously nobody is going to convince you that the issue you are mad about started nearly a century ago.

If you want to blame the great Satan Ronald and his evil demon minions the GOP we cant stop you.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Nope, don't believe that at all. Fairfax County boomed during and after the Reagan administration. Check the population numbers. That's when the "contractor arm" of the US government proliferated.

I actually had to look it up. NOVA population figures per census:

1940 298,588 30.3%
1950 488,945 63.8%
1960 788,162 61.2%
1970 1,118,064 41.9%
1980 1,357,387 21.4%
1990 1,805,091 33.0%
2000 2,253,251 24.8%
2010 2,794,957 24.0%
2020 3,197,076 14.4%

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Obviously nobody is going to convince you that the issue you are mad about started nearly a century ago.

If you want to blame the great Satan Ronald and his evil demon minions the GOP we cant stop you.

Again, never said Reagan started the "private military companies as extensions of govt" construct. His administration majorly expanded it and completely solidified it as the norm... and I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing anyway. And I believe that the Reagan admin did do a lot of good for the country. So the whole Satan Ronald, evil demons, etc. has zero influence on my comments. They're grounded in fact.

So, when people throw the term DC "swamp" around, they should realize how and when much of it got filled. That's all.