[stracer]

If Ryan McBeth defines MIC as just the defense companies, or its existence being conditioned on these companies having greater official revenues than Procter & Gamble, then he either misunderstands the concept, or he is (why?) trying to spread some weak argument for an idea that U.S. does not have an MIC, which is quite comical.

MIC is not just the defense companies, read the name again - it' the complex made of industry and the military. And Eisenhower's point in warning against it is not about revenue of the industry part, but about influence of the whole complex on major decisions.

In 1990's there was a short dip in funding, but since 2000's, its growth caught back on, and it's getting close to a trillion dollars a year. That much money chases a lot of constituency and a lot of power. Millions of people are dependent on it.

[Schiendelman]

To you is it just the industrial complex?

[stracer]

Why would you ask that? MIC = Military Industrial Complex. The complex is made of both the industry and the military.

[Schiendelman]

I ask that because you bring up Procter & Gamble, and imply the same concept exists everywhere, not just military companies.

[stracer]

> you bring up Procter & Gamble,

No, relwin brought it up, and I ridiculed the criterion. I don't get your point at all, sorry.