

Weapons 8% of US exports of durable goods, up from 3% in 2000 - Flemlord
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/01/america-makes-nothin.html

======
iamwil
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?

~~~
jsz0
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.

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

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

~~~
jrockway
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.

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

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

------
pavlov
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.

------
david927
_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._

~~~
jdminhbg
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.

~~~
evgen
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...

------
mattraibert
"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....](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/economy/01charts.html)

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

~~~
dan_the_welder
Until you use them.

