Also from Dr.Who:
I think there is a difference between moving money around and adding value to it. It would be simplistic to think of adding value only as manufacturing.
I took his comments as meaning adding value to the money spent, i.e. generating wealth, not adding value to the raw materials. I'm sure he can specify.
While we wait... I'd like to point out that using the leaky bucket of government to purchase any materials comes at a significantly higher cost than a private company acquiring the same materials.
Then there is the labor aspect, again, leaky bucket of government who doesn't need to make a profit vs. the private contractor who does need to make a profit. The government's inefficiencies and dismal record of resource allocation, not to mention legacy costs, are enough to put any private contractor out of business.
I would also like to reiterate my point about the source of government funds that went to purchase the raw material and cover construction costs, it's either taxed out of the current economy, borrowed against future economies, or printed and thereby devaluing the currency. So if you believe that the government has added X amount of value to the raw materials, then you need to subtract Y (source of revenue) and Z (inefficiency) to determine whether or not X is still a positive integer.
