AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Why the US wants to start WW III ?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
The only consistent policy of the US recently, especially in 2014, amounted to provoking conflicts everywhere : Middle East, Ukraine, and now with China too.

NY Times explains why:

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth.

(More accurate choice of title would reflect that it is not growth that is involved -- growth is no longer possible in the US -- but rather prevention of the economic collapse.)
(06-16-2014, 11:00 AM)mv Wrote: [ -> ]The only consistent policy of the US recently, especially in 2014, amounted to provoking conflicts everywhere : Middle East, Ukraine, and now with China too.

NY Times explains why:

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth.

(More accurate choice of title would reflect that it is not growth that is involved -- growth is no longer possible in the US -- but rather prevention of the economic collapse.)

The problem with this concept is almost the exact same as shown by Bastiat's concept of the "Seen, and the Unseen". The "Unseen" point is that all of the production does not go into creating something constructive. For every dollar spend building weapons, that same dollar is not being used for things that can be used for creating more wealth.

Just one more reason why the Keynesian Superstition needs to be put to rest. You will not see any of that horseshit within the Classical Economics crowd. Even Bill will agree here.
Quote:For every dollar spend building weapons, that same dollar is not being used for things that can be used for creating more wealth.

Not really.... weapons can be sold to warring parties or used to damage a competitor.

Plus there is a political component... Putin became immensely popular because of the Ukrainian crisis... Bush became immensely popular after arranging 9/11... I don't have data but suspect that FDR got a big boost over Pearl Harbor..... so the boy would benefit by starting a major war or arranging another 9/11-type event... or both...
Nice try, but it won't fly. I suggest you read some Bastiat. Probably the smartest Frenchman who ever lived. S5

The war-is-good-for-the-economy myth

Are Wars Good for the Economy? - Broken Windows and Wars

Are Wars Good for the Economy? - The Myth

Quote:From the Broken Window Fallacy it is quite easy to see why the war will not benefit the economy. The extra money spent on the war is money that will not be spent elsewhere. The war can be funded in a combination of three ways:

1. Increasing taxes
2. Decrease spending in other areas
3. Increasing the debt

Increasing taxes reduces consumer spending, which does not help the economy improve at all. Suppose we decrease government spending on social programs. Firstly we've lost the benefits those social programs provide. The recipients of those programs will now have less money to spend on other items, so the economy will decline as a whole. Increasing the debt means that we'll either have to decrease spending or increase taxes in the future; it's a way to delay the inevitable. Plus there's all those interest payments in the meantime.

If you're not convinced yet, imagine that instead of dropping bombs on Baghdad, the army was dropping refrigerators in the ocean. The army could get the refrigerators in one of two ways:

1. They could get every American to give them $50 to pay for the fridges.
2. The army could come to your house and take your fridge.

Does anyone seriously believe there would be an economic benefit to the first choice? You now have $50 less to spend on other goods and the price of fridges will likely increase due to the added demand. So you'd lose twice if you were planning on buying a new fridge. Sure the appliance manufacturers love it, and the army might have fun filling the Atlantic with Fridgidaires, but this would not outweigh the harm done to every American who is out $50 and all the stores that will experience a decline in sales due to the decline in consumer disposable income.

As far as the second one, do you think you'd feel wealthier if the army came and took your appliances away from you? The idea of the government coming in and taking your things may seem ridiculous, but it's not any different than increasing your taxes. At least under this plan you get to use the stuff for awhile, whereas with the extra taxes, you have to pay them before you have an opportunity to spend the money.

So in the short run the war will hurt the economy of the United States and their allies. It goes without saying that flattening most of Iraq to rubble will decimate the economy of that country. Hawks are hoping that by ridding Iraq of Saddam, a democratic pro-business leader can come in and improve the economy of that country in the long run. The economy of the United States could improve in the long run due to the war for a couple of reasons:
Two things here....

Firstly, it depends on how you do it... the way Junior bankrupted the US obviously was not good for the economy, but FDR's Pearl Harbor gambit did pay off in finally stopping the Great Depression.

Secondly, what you think (or what I think) is not even relevant. It is what the elite thinks .... and I have a feeling they respect Keynes more than Bastiat... actually let me take it back, Zero probably never heard about Bastiat....
War may not help the economy but it help a leader to become immensly popular.
(06-16-2014, 05:42 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: [ -> ]War may not help the economy but it help a leader to become immensly popular.

If you(second person plural) can only think as far as your erect Johnson, perhaps so. But thinking long term, not a chance.
And which politician thinks long-term? Have not noticed any like this lately....
(06-16-2014, 07:34 PM)mv Wrote: [ -> ]And which politician thinks long-term? Have not noticed any like this lately....

I thought Fred and I were discussing 'Leaders'. Politicians are not leaders.

Tag, you're It. S13
Well, buying a politician is not all that difficult, and juvenile ones are not even too costly....but where do you shop for a leader?
(06-16-2014, 09:57 PM)mv Wrote: [ -> ]Well, buying a politician is not all that difficult, and juvenile ones are not even too costly....but where do you shop for a leader?

Generally leaders are made, not bought. It akin to what Machiavelli once wrote, in his lesser known classic Titus Livius(Livy), "while gold by itself will not gain you good soldiers, good soldiers may readily get you gold." Its been bastardized here and there, but generally the spirit of the saying remains as above.
Agree with John on Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy applied to war.

The reason everyone hears that wars spur the economy comes from the 50's and the notion of the military-inductrial complex. Conspiracy theorists love to start there and then go off to whatever Lala-land they favor. Government rarely comes close to free enterprise, and free enterprise usually finds better things to do with investments and supplies than using them up with little return. Building a 20-ton transport may make few bucks for a company... but if that company was allowed to build that Jetson's personal flitter it really wants to, it would make far greater profit.