Umm HH you forget something about the US. It saddled with a bizarre amount of small government types, and one party that lives in perpetual opposition to the New Deal. One thing they allow is national defense. Do you think the Interstate highway system would have happened with IKE weighing on it military usefulness? do you think ARPA/DARPA would exist if had been called the advanced civilian research agency. Look at the ARS (USDA) a jewel of agriculture research with a tradition going back to Abraham Lincoln. Almost assuredly in conjunction with land grant ag schools the reason Americans spend so very little for food, yet it is is constantly the subject of attempts to cut its budget or staff level by Republicans (food security is apparently not national defense). I'll give you a good example the US ship building industry.Everyone who is working pays income taxes. So its not just the elites that pay for military-industrial complex, but mainly American middle class, which gains little to nothing from "superpower status".
Also we are yet to see any evidence that American taxpayers benefit from having military-industrial complex and states like Israel leeching funds that could have gone on things like infrastructure, scientific research, etc.
It would make sense for majority of US population to view military-industrial complex as a parasite, since it doesn't improve their lives nor benefits them.
https://www.enotrans.org/article/dec...ying-u-s-jobs/
https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0006988.A1.pdf (note page 18 in particular)
So basically in 1980 we have a world of subsidized shipbuilding. One where realistically now as then Japan would likely have the leading position sans industrial policy by every nation but places like the US and UK would likely still have smaller but successful industries. Also given the clear example of what happened to arobust UK ship building industry when it cut all subsides - it withered away. What did Uncle Ronnie do almost immediately he gutted the Merchant Marine Act, and presto change-o no real US ship building. Nixon should have called it the Merchant Marine Act and Defense act, than it would be about national security, and not evil industrialist policy. The really bizarre thing it (MMA) was killed with almost no notice. No first and attempt a grand trade deal with all the OECD nations for example to get rid of or scale back subsides, no roll in period to allow US produces to adjust, on just ideological purity I mean stupidity.
Take Boeing and Airbus. I not going to parse the circular argument of who is subsidized more and what means or started first, but clearly Boeing would not be subsidized as mush if it could not depend on the Pentagon. Do you really think Trump and Republicans are going to pass the Civil Aviation Industry support act. The ideal that money not spent on the pentagon would go to domestic research or infrastructure or grants to ameliorate tuition costs an public university or whatever is not well founded.
I mean really HH think about it. Back when the US was running a surplus and their was no particular war to fight. The ASCE ratings for US infrastructure were nearly as bad. The US could borrowed cheap. But M Freeman was bloviating about the need to cut takes so the debt market would stay liquid (really just cover standard Republican pap). The Republicans wanted to return the surplus, with systemic tax cuts in response to a cyclical occurrence - again typical. Where were the savvy republican business types calling for a trillion dollar infrastructure plan financed with cheap debt that would keep the bond market liquid and likely not cause any worry? Really a opportunity lost because bill could not keep his cock in his pants. From a macro economic perspective a trillion dollars in infrastructure starting in Clinton's second term would have very opportune. A The Fed was going to move to pop the dot com bubble (and rightly so) with a solid fiscal stimulus program aimed at real things not dot hype 2001 recession might well have simply been the 2001 slow down possibly the mythical 'soft landing' economists at the fed dream about.