1) military spending cycles money while reducing the production of goods that actually enter the real, recycling economy;

True. But the US will be obliged to withdraw from Empire because it is simply no longer sustainable either in material (particularly energy) and increasingly exhausted human resouces.

I think we all agree that the redeployment of the military industrial complex into US infrastructure and particularly renewables is the solution here. A War on Carbon if you like.

ie an entire new generation of manufacturing, which I believe the US may still be capable of (but maybe only if they call the baby boomers out of retirement to mentor the generation brought up to serve in Macdonalds.....)

2) printing money in excess of simple replacement causes "more money to chase the same amount of goods";

Firstly, this is not happening. The "replacement" requirement will actually run into the trillions of dollars, such is the extent of the US asset land value bubble. The Fed isn't even scratching the surface.

Secondly, merely providing "liquidity" in this way merely circulates existing money and avoids deflation. New money is needed for any new development, and the mechanism for providing it is fucked, because what the Fed is not doing is rebuilding Banks' balance sheets in terms of their Capital.

The Nordic (and Northern Rock) solution to this is nationalisation - which simply is not going to happen in the US. So, a "Capital rebuild" can only happen from future Bank profits, and if they ain't lending much then that reduces the scope for future profits as well.

This will be a sloooow process, as in Japan, and definitely not in itself an inflationary one.

3) raising component costs increases price in non-competitive markets (majority of the consolidated U.S. markets nowadays). All of these are inflationary

Here you presume pricing power that increasingly no longer exists because - thanks to the Anglo Disease - the poor bloody consumer is only able to keep buying by borrowing, and that option is now over.

So, either they absorb component price increases (and profits dive) or they go out of business. Quite possibly both.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

If you frame the environment as half the source of all prosperity - which ultimately it is, being the source of all raw materials and energy inputs - you can cost the value of resources of every type more realistically than if you count products of raw resources in terms of their nominal economic utility.

This is why biofuels are such a fiasco. In terms of natural prosperity economics they're not just barely cheaper, if at all, than oil, they're shuffling deck chairs around by taking energy from one place - food production - and moving it to another.

Natural prosperity accounting would make shifts like these explicit and central, not peripheral and easy to disguise.

Of course you still have to account for more conventional utility. But the equation becomes:

value = resource taxes (including energy inputs) x innovation multiplier x human conscription ('work') x desirability x profit

In a natural prosperity economy, the only true source of profit is the innovation multiplier, so traditional corporate profit - which is 'rent' paid on 'capital' - will have to be eliminated.

Infinitely renewable resources, or intellectual and creative products which use no physical resources at all, will pay no resource taxes. Extremely scarce items will pay very high taxes. If - and only if - ways are found to make them less scarce, the taxes can be lowered.

Desirability engineering can be used to create demand, but it should be valued less than original innovation.

And I don't agree with the use of land as a key resource. It's certainly one key resource, but it's also a return to a feudalism of sorts.

If I happen to find a gold-mine under my house the value of my land increases dramatically, and accounted for - and probably taxed - accordingly.

Value of land is a very contingent concept, which is why it can't be counted as a primary resource.