I don't know that the chart is misleading, as it states that the graph is indicating percent growth. It could probably be made clearer though.<p>I think it's the article that's misleading, especially with a title that declares something like that. Also, it's a durable goods chart. It says nothing about the non-durable exports, such as foodstuff. So the article is misleading because the US doesn't only export durable goods.<p>How come no one is deriding boingboing for their poor journalism, like the techcrunch article about google maps, sweden, and greenhouse gases?
I'm not American, but I don't see the problem here. Why would you want to be producing polluting hunks of metal if you can avoid it?<p>As far as the Toynbee "plunder economy" quote goes, I don't find it applicable simply because the American Empire doesn't seem to be very good at extracting tribute from conquered territories. The success of the United States is built on something completely else. For recent examples, compare the economic benefits of the Iraq conquest to those of having Google in your country -- private innovation triumphs over imperialism as an economic engine.
<i>He goes on to quote Toynbee on Rome: "The economy of the Empire was basically a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on booty from conquered territories... With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry.</i>
"The United States remains primarily a civilian economy. The military now takes about 8 percent of all durable goods, up from 3 percent in 2000."<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/economy/01charts.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/economy/01charts....</a>