This is too derivative and fails to provide the foundation necessary to support its strong conclusion. There is nothing particularly wrong with the logic or even most of the facts but its sourcing is weak and it comes off as flat.

This is a thoughtful analysis comparing the measures of GDP and GPI, which experts say is more accurate.

I'm curious why this measure of growth shows stagnation over the period of 92-00 when I was under the impression that the economic growth we had was real. Also, I think one could argue that not all military spending goes to weaponry that has no impact on civilians - some of that spending is used in researching technology that will be used by civilians (medicine and communications are the first two that come to mind). Of course, I have no idea what percent of our defense spending will benefit civilians, but this statistic seems to indicate 0...