up to its stated specifications and if you actually look back at. ready history of the military, industrial complex lockheed martin all the way back in the sixty's. already went through this entire process with the f one or 4 star fighter. it was a mass of weapons program. the us use bribery and portion to force it on all of it . suppose it allies, it also failed to live up to its expectations. and this situation with the 35 is just the latest iteration of this deeply rooted, institutionalized corruption. to keep on top of all the latest happenings by checking our website, all t dot com. as always, we appreciate you staying with us. thank you for choosing audience. national. the

take a fresh look around. just a life kaleidoscopic. isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify will confuse who really wants a better world. and is it just as a chosen few fractured images presented as 1st? can you see through their illusion going underground? can

the what does the width aim to achieve and it's the crane proxy war, the defeat humiliation and break up of russia. if this is the case in the west because already lost the

hello. i'm manila chad. you're tuned into modus operandi. where is a racket? smedley, butler, one of the most decorated marines and 2 time metal of honor recipients said in his favor speech. it breaks and billions of dollars, hand over fist for the few. that is. but what about the economics of peace? can peace actually proved to be more profitable? besides, obviously, be more sustainable. tonight we'll talk with famed economics professor richard wolf about the economics of peace. all right, let's get into the m o. the james take what jr was paid a salary package of about $18100000.20. that's par for the course in his field of employment. his salary is roughly

a $164.00 times the median salary of his employees. a relative to the net sales of the company that he runs. that amount, totaling $66000000000.00 in 2022. jim salary is mild and pales in comparison. james, take what junior is the chairman, president and ceo of lockheed martin the head honcho of one of the world's leading defense contractors. his company specialty is building jets and bonds and things that destroy human life. and jim is just one of a handful of defense executives who some might call the merchants of death. so we know this industry rakes and big box. but more and more people are starting to do the math on how much money piece brings piece stability, cooperation. all that come by all stuff now has some data behind it. so to help us

break down all the dollars in common sense that piece brings prosperity to all. we'll talk to a meritus professor of economics at umass amherst co founder of democracy at work. professor richard wolf. i should also add that the professor now has a radio show program called economic update, very fitting professor was good to see you. thank you so much for joining us. so we often talk about how much money the us spends on war. the d o d gets nearly a trillion dollars annually. we know this and we'll discuss that later. but what many people don't realize is that economic prosperity and peace are inextricably tied. so according to a 2020 to study by the world bank and the institute for economics and peace, g d, p growth is steadily higher and more peaceful countries. iceland took home the 2022

prize for the most peaceful country. but the researcher's cautioned that this trend is not causal. rather, it shows that piece of economic progress are actually interlinked. can you help explain that for us? sure, it's a truism among economists who have studied economic history. that the number, the g d p, the economic output of goods and services per year on an economy and its growth overtime on not by themselves. all that significant in terms of how a society evolves. many, many other things come into play other than the shares size of output. and so it isn't surprising at all that it might be that if you have an economy that's very large like the united states, but that it has

a disproportionate impact or commitment. if you like to producing military goods and services, a big defense budget, as you quite likely caught in, that this may take away from innovation and lots of industries. it may mean that you keep producing a narrow band of goods, airplanes, guns, bullets, and all of that. rather than that, attending to all kinds of other issues, the kind of get less investment or less energy or less research and development focus. so in the end, you might regret that you spend as heavily as the united states does a military activity because you neglected others that had a bigger impact on the eventual rate of growth itself that has happened before in history. and that is happening now to and we could go through if you like,

the mechanisms by which there's a norm is impact of spending on military can have very negative effect on your rate of growth and the development of your whole society. yeah, sure. why don't you give us one example so us non economists can better understand . okay, so let me give you a stock example. here's a statistic to think about. the more people in the united states died during the cold in 19 pandemic of the last 3 or 4 years. then died in world war 12, and 3, in terms of american casualties in those wars. in other words, where we had to have had foresight, we did, and of course, but where we have 4 side, we could have spent a very small amount of the money we spend on military in all those wars. to

develop a really 1st rate medical system in this country that could have right away responded with a ventilator the masks and the gloves and all of a well known apparatus of a well develop a medical system for the mass of people. we didn't do that, but it would have been a small reduction in our defense, as we call it, for a much better benefit in terms of saving lives, saving illnesses, saving the long coal bid out, blaise that we're going to be having for years to come, that are all holding back our economic development, not pushing it forward. and that's the kind of where you're looking at the quality of the outlays of

a society. if you put all that much in defense as people have long understood, that's where the old game that it's bought or, or guns that you invest in. well, it could also be guns versus medical care, having a comprehensive health system everywhere in this country. we still don't have it, it's a travesty. we couldn't had it as small cuts in the defense. i blaze what is made that possible. and there are many other examples quite like that. according to the global piece index 2022 report. countries tend to deteriorate much faster than they improve. the report also revealed that the global average a piece dropped by point 03 percent in 2022. all right, that may sound tiny, just a fraction of a percent. but that actually marked the 11th drops in 14 years. is that reflected

in what appears to be the state of the world economy right now, which you've explained to me just a few months ago that we are now beyond the inflation phase. and we're now instead inflation, well, here's how i would put it. i think i, i want to say yes, but i want to be clear about what i'm saying. yes to here. we are now in a situation where the most arresting statistic about how the world has developed over the last, let's say 20 years just to pick a round number that's statistic. the most impressive one for many of us is the level of any quality. in other words, to put it bluntly, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have not. and the gap between the rich, let's call it the top 5 percent, the top 10 percent of you want and everybody else has gotten wider. we didn't

have to do it that way, but that's the way global capitalism has evolved. both here in the united states and pretty much everywhere else in the world. some more extreme than others. but the trend towards greater in the quality seems to be built in to the capital a system. there's a famous french for economist named thomas to get a written note, very important books over the last few years. and he works it all out how that in a quality tendency is built into the system. why do i stress that? because if we know anything about the history of the world, the more on the equal societies are 2 things happen. the mass of people who get poor become upset, angry, bigger about what's happening to them. at the other half of the other side,

the ridge by the very distance between themselves and the mass of people become more anxious about their security. more aware that the majority of people don't have what they have and are looking enviously in their direction. so they want more police protection. they want more military protection. they are more suspicious. anxious, worried? well, this is a tender box. it just then takes a little match thrown by whoever might be inclined to do so, and these situations explode. and when they do, you have civil wars, you have bitter strides. you have social divisions, you know what you have. you have what you see in the united states more each week, whether it's individualize in shootings or it's more social is

a political dial logs, which seems to be a dialogue of the depths. and you have a tensions exploding around the world. i would argue that we are having less and less peace and more and more violence and conflict because we are basing our sales on an economic system that produces the in the quality to live that leads to those on the happy outcome. coming up next for many outside of the united states. america is the land of peace and opportunity. but according to the latest piece index research, where the old usa rakes might actually shock you, we'll discuss it when we return with professor richard will sit tight demo. we'll be right back the the

welcome back to the m. o. i am manila chant hollywood movies, paint for us as the land of milk and honey. and while it retains its 1st world status, the level of peace, its citizens actually experience tells a different story. the professor richard wolf is back with us to discuss the image of the us versus the reality on the ground. so professor, be global piece,

index ranked the us at number 129 on their list. we're darn near the bottom. only a few places like yemen and syria rank below the us on the piece index. now, this may not make a lot of sense to some of the international viewers who may think of the us as it's depicted in these movies. while we may not have bombs, you know, falling out of the sky, the us is an extremely violent society, which has a direct impact on our domestic economy. and if you look at where our tax dollars are going, $858000000000.00 just this year to the pentagon. that is up a $100000000000.00 more than last year's budget. according to our national priorities dot org, they say the individual average american tax payer paid $929.00 towards pentagon contractors in 2021, which funds them for

a whopping 18 days. but only a $171.00. dollars of our taxes went to pay through $12.00 education, then $62.00 going towards nukes, but only $7.00 towards anti homelessness programs. how do you read our economic investment so far? well, you know, the distribution of our tax dollars, like the distribution of the income, all of us get as human beings living here is affected by all kinds of issues. a series about the future worries a savings, put your kids through college, be able to afford a better home, a better car. but the way we spend our money is shaped by many, many things. and every capitalist enterprise has long ago understood this and realized that if it's going to succeed, it has to create

a solid basis in the population of people who want to buy whatever that particular company is, what it's selling. and that's why, for example, we have an enormous industry called advertising, where a company pays to have its logo, its picture, its products stuck in our faces, wherever we turn all day every day to keep us connected to them. well, the defense industries are no different from the industry that makes ice cream or software programs. the people who produce guns and ships and tanks and planes, and missiles, they need to keep it up by your, of what they sell glue to them. well, doesn't make much sense to put the missile out there on the tv screen. most people

wouldn't know what to do and it's not part of their daily lives. and the buyer remembers the government. nobody else is allowed to even own most of those things. level owned by them. so the government has to be willing to let itself be approached by the defense contractors to promote their wares. but that looks a little dicey too. so long ago the defense producers understood they have to go behind the politician. they have as to go to the mass of people to give them the feeling that you'd better support the government buying all the guns and missiles and keeping all those troops in all those bases. in all those countries, you have to maintain a sense and there's no way of a beating around the bush here. you have to create

a sense of being at risk of being in danger. for most of the 20th century, we were all told that the danger is socialism. when the soviet union collapsed in 1989, we had to find a new one. and we did terrorism and terrorist and we declared and gloves, war on terrorism, with the same language that we had early you use to declare and blows war against socialism. and when terrorism faded away, well then we had this, the food and then russia, coming back for a 2nd run. and we have is using pain in china and the china thread. this is a country that has felt the need to produce in itself a notion of at risk getting this from violent external forces. because whatever else you think about it, it is

a wonderful way to keep the people willing to spend the money just as you laid it out on defense in a way that almost no other country does. let me remind everyone of a famous fit testing that's been true for at least half a century. the united states as a nation, spends more on military defense, then the 9 other countries that are in the top 10 combined. let me say it again as we, as a nation, spend more on the military then the next 9, the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th, all the way down to the 10th country in terms of total outlay. and let me be clear, those countries added up have many more people to defend, that there are american citizen china alone, which is one of those 9 countries. indeed,

china and russia are in the 9 below us. all the rest of those countries are allies of the united states. so the over whelming military dominance of the united states was offset the less that make americans say, well let's take it easy we, we have more than the other 9 combined. what are we so worried? oh no, no. we keep up the sense of endangerment all the time in a way no other society does. and we deify fund and keep going. the military enterprises of the country round university as costa for project highlights how these war contractors in the us managed to keep their backing from lawmakers big contractors like lockheed martin raytheon based systems. and a lot of others. they've read their sub contracting and supply chains all over the

country, which they then out as creating jobs in that state. but as the brown university researchers discovered of the 20 states with economies most dependent on pentagon contracts or military manufacturing, 14 of the 20 states experienced poverty rates at on par with, or in many cases, even higher rates than the national average. so what does that do to the argument that war is actually good for the economy? it's a challenge to that argument and as are many other challenges to that, argue that let me expand a little bit on it. we know from studying the military expenditure that over the last 50 years, a very remarkable reality for every dollar spent on the military producers less in the way of new jobs. then it did 5 years ago,

even less than 10 years ago. in other words, the labor component of outlays on defense has been shrinking and nobody should be much surprised. that's mainly because our military is more and more mechanized, more and more computerized more and more robust dies, so that you don't generate the kinds of job numbers. you did, baby in the 1950s, sixties, or seventies. you don't do that any more, which helps explain why on employment and so on, on now more and more present in the high military spending. but there's a deeper problem here, which is very illogical and comes down almost to a question of economic literacy. if you ask the question of a worker or a vote or, or somebody being polled in the street, and you say,

are you concerned that if the military budget is reduced, less money will come flowing into this area and they'll be fewer job? of course, the answer is yes, if, if the only thing that happens is that we cut the military budget, then yes, we will reduce the flow of money into an area, and that's not going to be good for its economy, but no one in their right mind has ever suggested that you cut the military budget and don't do anything else. the whole point of saving money on the military, spending less on military activity is to spend that money on something else more valuable to the people of the country. it. what does that be in improving our schools, improving our hospitals, improving our fill in the blanks,

dealing with our lax infrastructure as were slowly trying to do, perhaps relieving the young people of the depths that they have that hobble their future. the whole point would be to compare how many jobs would be lost if the military cut back versus how many jobs would be created with fee alternative investments that could be made with the money not spent on the military. that will be the only honest way to talk about this. unfortunately, the military corporations, the employer is that a capital is, will make the guns that turn the plains, the missiles, they don't want this to happen. they don't want to lose the money flowing into their profits. in order to build up schools, hospitals, other things that will be money made by others,

they are not interested in that. so they have been very interested in keeping the question absurdly narrow to you one defense department, money coming into your district or not. and everybody else is out of the predictable way, but you can't use that as a basis for arguing that the people want it. it's because you've posed the question in an unfair biased way to get the answer. you are looking for professor richard wall. thank you. so much, always a pleasure to speak with you and you can hear more from the professor at democracy at work dot info. okay, there you have it, but i think you already knew we don't need a ph. d. and anything to know that with piece comes across spirit, the but corporate greed from the merchants of death are willing to give up their profits without a fight. so the question becomes how to fight for peace?

peacefully. i'll let you ponder that one that's going to do it for this episode and modus operandi the show that dig deep in the foreign policy. i'm your host middleware chan, thank you for tuning it. we'll see you again next week to figure out the m. o. the

which i thought there were some openings for students, the sluggard has done so right now, let's showing the earphones continue. getting this, the post is on the, at the is that i, that's a get a minute come. other students need which is easy to saw on the screen. so of course to ensure material which is in line. i'm willing, i didn't like the law, but the game is vis or the little screw well in the middle. so because i mean, yeah, we didn't present it to not the results. ok. the 20, i'd like to just do this for sure. and i'm comfortable in which way which

insidiously sent him that process the the, the headlines banassi international distressing image is a 7 civilian. think getting to children a wounded as it crazy and forced himself residential areas in russian, sonia republic. most of the minutes trying to deal to deploy non strategic russian nuclear arms to belive roost at home by the growing slides from now to south africa . as president underlines the continent, software and see of position of known alignment with the west as african celebrates its historical success in mice and colonialism on the part time.