I don’t think you understand what I was saying. I wasn’t making an endorsement…just an explanation. It’s not something you need to agree with, in order to understand.

Of course there are better ways to build an economy. The unfortunate reality however, is that a sizable portion of the US economy is currently dependent on the MIC to function. It’s not that easy to just “change”.

It would be like wanting to turn one kind of forest into another kind of forest, just because you like the other kind of trees better. I mean, yeah…you can cut down all the trees and replant them with another variety…but that ecosystem will take a long time to reestablish itself, and some of what depended on those original trees will never recover.

Should it be done…yes. But, will the people in charge of making those decisions actually do it? Probably not. Those politicians were elected to represent those communities that currently depend on those industries for their livelihoods. Those people obviously don’t want to lose their jobs…and their representatives obviously aren’t going to do anything that’s going to negatively impact their local economy. The status quo is self-reinforcing.

It’s easy to say, “just find different jobs for everyone to do”…but it’s enormously difficult to actually do. This is what makes it an “economic dependency”. If you cut those local economies off from their current revenue stream…they probably won’t survive the withdrawal.