The Gunbelt's Existence in American Economy

The scattered areas of the "gunbelt" achieved growth because, first, entrepreneurs and soldiery planners sought locations that would take into account them with greater freedom of action, and, second, because, once the initial armaments firms became established in an area, the national politicians representing those areas began directing almost totally of their energies toward increasing the development of the armaments industry in those area.

2. The authors spend a great deal of time focusing on which locations defecate benefited (or lost) due to patterns of defense spending. Less time is spent on the overall level of defense spending. What is the logical implication of this focus on place rather than the overall wideness of defense in the economy? Why do you think they chose this focus?

By focusing on place, as opposed to the overall resultant role on the economy of armaments spending, the authors are able to support their debate that a "gunbelt" developed as a consequence of some(prenominal) preplanned, conscious effort on the part of government planners. The significance of the focus on place rather than overall importance to the economy permits the authors to attribute the uneven growth of the various domains in the American economy to armaments spending by the national government. It is difficult

Thus, when a defense dress is closed, a drain on the national economy is eliminated. By contrast, when a plant is closed because of deindustrialization, an operation that, at least in theory, is a contributor to the productive economy is lost. In the conciselyrun, the closure of a defense plant is equally as harmful to the economy as is the closure of a plant because of deindustrialization. In each instance, in most cases, relieve oneselfers are displaced, and, in the United States, advance plans are seldom made to provide for an orderly transition of such employees from one type of work to another. In the longrun, however, the national economy will be stronger because of the closure of a defense plant, while it will be weaker as the result of a plant closure resulting from deindustrialization.

The federal emphasis on defense spending has been a culprit in the decline of American manufacturing because it diverted some of the country's lift out minds toward armaments production and apart from civilian manufacturing. This phenomenon occurred without respect, however, to the geographical location of the armaments industry. Thus, the authors could ca-ca discussed the outcome just as well in the condition of the overall impact of armaments spending on the American economy. By emphasizing the socalled "gunbelt," however, the authors were able to demonstrate that an entire geographic region became the victim of armaments spending decisions that directed money away from that region. This approach simplified their debate, and made it easier to justify. The approach, however, did not strengthen their argument in theory.

The driving force behind the closure of a defense plant may be the obsolescence of a technology. This federal agent was particularly relevant to defense plant closures that occurred during the " cool War." During the "Cold War," also, defense plants were often closed when the national politicians from one region were more effective than the national politicians from ano
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.