The Case That Wars Fuel U.S. Economic Booms
By Mark Ames, AlterNet. Posted February 24, 2009.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/128720/?page=1 (http://www.alternet.org/audits/128720/?page=1)
In the great debate about the stimulus package -- which, underneath all the cant is really nothing more than a debate about how America's scarce wealth should be divided -- one of the right wing's favorite mantras was their claim that the New Deal did nothing to end the Depression. Instead, they argue, it was World War Two that ended the Depression.
...
If war is what fuels American prosperity, as the George Wills and others on the right are half-arguing in their sly, cowardly way, then have the guts to say so, and stop lying about private enterprise.
Maybe a war on poverty would help.
Quote from: lisagurl on February 25, 2009, 08:06:30 AM
Maybe a war on poverty would help.
That sounds almost... bad
It may be the case that wars fuel the economy, but there's more to the story than that. While defense contractors and those companies tied to providing supplies for the war effort may benefit, the rest of the economic sector (i.e. healthcare, infrastructure, environmental, basically domestic aspects) suffer as a result of said war.
As the case right now with Iraq and Afghanistan, certain areas of the economy have prospered (Haliburton, defense contractors, Blackwater - now known as Xe - etc.) while others have faltered (the housing crash, the collapse of banks, people loosing jobs, etc.) and suffered as a result of the war.
Obama recently called for an additional 18,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan. Which pisses me off. Bring them all home, including those on illegal, foreign bases (where we have no right to be in the first place), and end the wars. I don't want to fight anymore, and neither does the majority of the public. We want (green) jobs, we want to know our homes and money are safe, to have adequate health care, and we want a government that cares more about helping the people more than it does about lining the pockets of big businesses which support the war at the expense of the rest of the country.
Quote from: fae_reborn on February 25, 2009, 09:57:47 AM
It may be the case that wars fuel the economy, but there's more to the story than that. While defense contractors and those companies tied to providing supplies for the war effort may benefit, the rest of the economic sector (i.e. healthcare, infrastructure, environmental, basically domestic aspects) suffer as a result of said war.
Very true, but inevitably the advances made during a war filter into the rest of the economy afterwards, stimulating growth and innovation for a while. And it's not just the obvious stuff like industrial innovation and technological invention and medical procedures and the like - modern marketing evolved from propaganda techniques developed during WWII, for example.
Unfortunately I see alot of truth in the argument, but it's by no means unique to the US. Rome, The British Empire, the Spanish, China, Japan - all of them grew and prospered only as long as they expended and consumed everything around them. Inevitably they stagnated and floundered when they no longer had more wars to fight and simply got bogged down in hanging on to what they had, wars they lost purely through bogged-downedness.
One would hope that we've evolved past that model for civilization, but yeah, I'm not holding my breath. :(
Mina.
War is just an easy way to focus energy and resources on a single purpose.
There would still be innovation and all kings kinds of even better gains, if the resources and energy were to be focused on one or several specific issues or projects.
Quotewhile others have faltered (the housing crash, the collapse of banks, people loosing jobs, etc.) and suffered as a result of the war
The war did not cause the problem. It was caused by people borrowing money to consume and they knew they could not pay it back. Credit cards, mortgages, car loans and bad business models let people live in their fantasy without accepting the physical reality that you can not get something for nothing.
People not acting responsible and lenders and marketing cheering them on.
yeah. Those people stink.
Quote from: lisagurl on February 25, 2009, 11:46:15 AMIt was caused by people borrowing money to consume and they knew they could not pay it back.
The thing is, they didn't know that, at least not consciously. One of the big reasons this was able to happen was because of the housing boom, so people kept taking out equity against their property in the belief that the increasing value of their property would cover it. Then the oil-price shot into the stratosphere, causing inflation at the pump and thus in everything else, suddenly people were spending too much on living expenses, started defaulting, and it all came tumbling down because the ratio of liquidity to debt had simply gotten too huge because deregulation had allowed lending institutions to take ever more precarious positions by selling debt on as assets.
All we needed was a straw to break the camel's back, and the oil price was it.
Mina.
I disagree, kind of.
When I got my house, I made absolutely certain that the payments were within my means. WELL within my means. And, I would never ever take a loan against the house unless it was a health emergency. Never ever (unless it was a health emergency).
People who bought houses at the edge of or beyond their means should not have even gotten the loans. And no one should ever borrow against their house for a car or a boat or another house or anything for any reason. I truly do not understand taking equity from your home.
It is the responsibility of individuals to understand their finances. Nothing gains value forever. I don't even understand how anyone could think that.
The banks and the borrowers are at fault.
I feel bad for people but I can't grasp how someone can bring this kind of trouble upon themselves. I mean, it's different if you do everything responsibly and then tragedy strikes and you get creamed by circumstances.
Live within your means, or else! :police:
Quote from: Rebis on February 25, 2009, 12:16:10 PM
I feel bad for people but I can't grasp how someone can bring this kind of trouble upon themselves. I mean, it's different if you do everything responsibly and then tragedy strikes and you get creamed by circumstances.
Live within your means, or else! :police:
I agree, but when you consider how powerful marketing is, the perceived advantages of social status, that sort of thing, it's easy to get caught up in keeping up. Case in point - my very first real job was as a junior programmer at a startup in Johannesburg. I was driving a beat-up old VW Passat. By the end of the first week I'd more-or-less been ordered to get something more "in fitting with the company's status" as soon I was able, and that the company would help me out once we'd all settled in. According to the boss, the big clients had to perceive you to be doing well in the first place for you to do well with them - the whole confidence game. I didn't last long there ... we had ... creative differences. ;)
I can see how that can easily translate further, where the perception of doing well becomes even more important than actually doing well, because the "confidence" (read jealousy/admiration/whatever) you perceive in you from others not only feeds into your own sense of security, but does actually BECOME a form of security as well. Madoff was only able to get away with what he did for as long as he did because he projected the image of doing well. At a smaller scale, everybody was doing the same as he had been.
Mina.
Quotethe perceived advantages of social status
LOL, That depends on how stupid the perceiver is. Where I live a dirt poor looking farmer can walk into a John Deere dealer and pull out 200K out of his pocket and buy equipment. In NYC those that wear expensive cloths have a sign on them (Target). The world has gotten much more casual so looks just do not count anymore. I never had a car loan but I have had a 7 brand new cars and kept them for 200,000 miles. I drive a 94 SC400. I could buy a new one but why? As long as it works it is making me money.
Not only in America.
War has always been a great economic boom while it's new, and then the aftermath has always had great potential for companies that work with the reconstruction of that which the war consumed.
The wars should be against poverty, disease, and natural disasters.
Quote from: Rebis on February 25, 2009, 03:31:51 PM
The wars should be against poverty, disease, and natural disasters.
"should" maybe..
But I have to ask actually, how exactly do you propose to fight natural disasters?
My fight against natural disasters beguns thusly:
1. Have some crack teams identify the most possibly dangerous areas where hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and drought, and all the rest are mostly likely to occur.
2. Find the segments of the earth's population most likely to be affected by these disasters. Some are common places where disasters occur regularly.
3. Determine if there is a method of gaining the most advanced warning possible.
4. Put resources into construction designed to build stable homes and buildings.
5. Build special places where the population can gather for the most safety possible.
6. Create teams of rescuers who can attend to situations where people can be retrieved.
7. Create teams of engineers who would toss up some temporary structures designed to blunt the effect of the disaster, if possible. reroute floods, or whatever.
8. Have at least 3 classes throughout all students schooling, one in the low grades, one in the middle grades, and one in the high grades, that will teach and train the students for disaster recovery (heh. I just thought of that). This way, as the years pass, there will be more adults aware of the safety measures and procedures.
9. Have a system by which rebuilding happens as quickly as possible.
10. Have a nice healthy way of handling large numbers of refugees while they are displaced.
11. Find a way to control the planet's bodily functions.
This would be a continuing battle. New technologies needed to handle sick and wounded people. People trained in rebuilding. People trained as inspectors. Constant retraining.
Some of these forces would be as flexible as possible. They could be moved around the globe as necessary in order to keep them lean and mean, and experienced.
People from these Earth Forces would be able to leave the organization with all kinds of technical training and life experiences that would help them be nurses, cops, and firefighters in their communities back home.
any volunteers?
We won't be needing snipers unless the disaster is 10 million bears suddenly going mental.
Quote from: lisagurl on February 25, 2009, 03:19:17 PMLOL, That depends on how stupid the perceiver is.
People can be pretty stupid ... ;)
Mina.
Quote from: Rebis on February 25, 2009, 07:21:52 PM
We won't be needing snipers unless the disaster is 10 million bears suddenly going mental.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Those are all great ideas Rebis, and would probably be a better allocation of resources rather than continuing pointless wars.
War will fuel an economy for a short period of time, but if it continue too long it bankrupts the economy. Every government that tried it too long went under.
But the goverment may use also natural disarsters to abuse power. FEMA's plan for a big catastroph may be quit horrible.
QuoteFEMA's plan for a big catastroph may be quit horrible.
What's the difference? Everything is horrible after a big catastrophe
it's all for the bankers benifit. not the small time banks, the world banks. they fund both sides of wars. victory leads to profits and defeat leads to being able to buy everything up for pennies on the dollar in order to build it all up and do it all over again.
becuase of that, there is never going to be any motivation to do ANY of the wonderful things on your list Rebis. as unfortunate as it is, there is no profit in prevention (disease, disaster, etc). and profit is all that matters after all. even jindal's republican response the other day made that even more obvious. "spend money on volcano awareness?!?! what a waste of money! it's not like I'm from a place that could ever have any kind of natural disaster!"
now if you'll excuse me, I need to apply some more tinfoil to my cool pirate hat that I made.
Quote from: fae_reborn on February 26, 2009, 11:52:13 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Those are all great ideas Rebis, and would probably be a better allocation of resources rather than continuing pointless wars.
Thanks. It's all about the people.
Quote from: Rebis on February 25, 2009, 12:16:10 PM
I disagree, kind of.
When I got my house, I made absolutely certain that the payments were within my means. WELL within my means. And, I would never ever take a loan against the house unless it was a health emergency. Never ever (unless it was a health emergency).
while I applaud you for making the responsible decisions, not everyone was able to do that. most of the people affected during this crisis were first time borrowers who were just trying to start a family and in their opinion they did everythign the proper way. they only wanted to live the american dream, like we all do. when you are told that your $300k house will go up to $700k in a few years, it's very tempting to assume you can afford it after a couple years of your ARM and then use all that equity to paydown and refinance. this was a trap that got many first time buyers into houses that admittedly were beyond their means, but honestly that's all developers were building - multi bedroom mini mansions.
Quote from: Rebis on February 25, 2009, 12:16:10 PM
It is the responsibility of individuals to understand their finances. Nothing gains value forever. I don't even understand how anyone could think that.
that's a fundamental flaw of capitalism. it's entirely based on growth. and when growth inevitably slows and stops we sit around and scratch our heads wondering what went wrong. what's the solution? I don't know - touger reglutaions on both the lenders and borrowers is only a start, but as long as we are a growth based economy, home values will always rise and fall in a bubble.
Quote from: Rebis on February 25, 2009, 12:16:10 PM
I feel bad for people but I can't grasp how someone can bring this kind of trouble upon themselves. I mean, it's different if you do everything responsibly and then tragedy strikes and you get creamed by circumstances.
the vast majority were living within their means - albeit some were stretched quite thin. and those circumstances hit more often then not, it's not a coincidence that as the unemployment rate approached 9% (closer to 13% actual) that delinquent payments skyrocketed and the foreclosure rates quadroupled.
as for the flippers that are struggling? they made their own bed.
oh.
Flippers are going to be mad when they discover the plan to help people in distress. It doesn't include dolphins. (I'm sorry I said that)
FEMA:s first priority is not to protect people, cities, rural areas, legimitive goverment and rule of the law it is rather ''control'' population during disarters or civil unrest. Under Reagan admistration it developed basics of current plans by George Bush Sr, Oliver North and some others. It came first in publicity in Contra-Iran hearings in 1987. The grand plan was more effecient keeping goverment safe from people in case of civil unrest (that was expected to rise in case US would have invided to Nicaragua for example).
And how much of stories of secret FEMA running detention facilities are true? Is that all paranoia? However Operation Garden Plot is a real plan that exists. Is there huge secret detention centers in Alaska for example as rumored to wait those who disagree with goverment in the case the program would be carried out?
Quote from: SomeMTF on February 26, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
FEMA:s first priority is not to protect people, cities, rural areas, legimitive goverment and rule of the law it is rather ''control'' population during disarters or civil unrest. Under Reagan admistration it developed basics of current plans by George Bush Sr, Oliver North and some others. It came first in publicity in Contra-Iran hearings in 1987. The grand plan was more effecient keeping goverment safe from people in case of civil unrest (that was expected to rise in case US would have invided to Nicaragua for example).
well, it's the federal emergency management agency isn't it? of course it's set up to control people to prevent civil unrest and make sure that things are managed during an emergency. fema isn't protecting anyone they are only enacted after a disaster of some kind occurs, and they have to be requested by the state so I don't foresee fema rounding up everyone and putting them into cages - that will be done by the local (militarized) police forces when it happens.
I don't know what nicarragua has to do with fema though.... I"m not a big fan of FEMA (especially after it's failures during katrina in getting people the help they needed long after the leves were breached), but i think they are necessary in a large scale disaster (like hurricane andrew).
Quote from: SomeMTF on February 26, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
And how much of stories of secret FEMA running detention facilities are true? Is that all paranoia? However Operation Garden Plot is a real plan that exists. Is there huge secret detention centers in Alaska for example as rumored to wait those who disagree with goverment in the case the program would be carried out?
alex jones fan are we?
right now they are just stories, i've seen videos online that supposedly show these prison camps, and they are really using their imaginiation. I don't doubt that our government (and maybe even fema to an extent) has at least looked into the possibilty of detaining large chunks of our population due to civil unrest - and maybe even procured some land, but that is sorta the job of government - to plan for any scenario.
we've never had a peoples revolt in this country (other than the revolution) to try and overthrow our government. if and when that time comes, the federal government will be self preservationist and could very well lock up "insurgents" into these camps. whether or not you agree with those actions will depend largely on what side of the revolution you are on ;)
Also the plan of the Bush goverment to ensure that a legal society continues working after a big catastrophe was not showed to members of the people elected U.S. house of representatives. What that tells about their plan for a real catastrophe? That they may use a natural disaster for example as an excuse to repeal constitutional goverment and declare martial law?
thankfully, bush is no longer in power. ;)
we have 3 branches of our government, no single branch is more powerful than the other. our government has been broken for several years now, but that principle still hold true and I get the impression that after 20 years of reagan/bush/cheney/bush in some form has finally made people remember that. I didn't include clinton, becuase he definately had lots of resistance during his time in office and all 3 branches seemed to have influence.
martial law is one of those things that can happen, but it's not a simple as you might think. there are always more of US than there are of THEM. look at how well we did in iraq and afghanistan. we out muscle them 20:1, and yet they managed to resist for 5+ years.
I hate bush as much as the next girl, but if he wanted to declare martial law and do a hostile takeover of the populace, he had at least 3 chances to do so and chose not to (9/11, katrina and the economic crisis).
"their" goal is much more subtle if you ask me, "they" have suceeded in dumbing down america so that no one is aware of what is happening. "they" have managed to make sure that the working class stays under control through debt unti the day we die. I put quotes around "they" becuase we don't know who they are really, it's surely not our government - they are only puppets for the real leaders of this government (the banks and corporations).
Quote from: eliza beth on February 26, 2009, 04:48:14 PM
we've never had a peoples revolt in this country (other than the revolution) to try and overthrow our government. if and when that time comes, the federal government will be self preservationist and could very well lock up "insurgents" into these camps. whether or not you agree with those actions will depend largely on what side of the revolution you are on ;)
I'm on the side that wins.
QuoteThat they may use a natural disaster for example as an excuse to repeal constitutional government and declare martial law?
LOL I worked in a FEMA war room during a big Ice storm that took out all the electricity for millions. It is a fact that all leaders of the various government departments local state and federal are all in one room. That way the can coordinate activities. However each leader gives commands to his own people after he and all the others agree on the best action. The main goal is to save lives, second is to save property and restore necessities, third is to return things to normal as soon as possible. They have no authority to arrest only report crimes to the proper authorities.
The right to bare arms is so the government can not rule the people by force. Their would be a revolution like earlier in our history.
I do not believe in stupid paleoconservative/libertarian conspiracy theories. I just said that even govermental programs for ''good'' reasons might be misused to abuse power. However I do not think that they should not exist.
People must not accept totalitarian programs of any kind however.
War in Iraq has rather fuel recession than U.S. economy.
Quote from: lisagurl on February 26, 2009, 06:46:49 PM
The right to bare arms is so the government can not rule the people by force. Their would be a revolution like earlier in our history.
I think it would be more of an incursion or revolt that would be put down, or else go on for decades.
I think the Broken Window Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy) works well here, so I invoke it.
Quote from: armozel on March 05, 2009, 07:46:01 AM
I think the Broken Window Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy) works well here, so I invoke it.
It certainly holds true here.
When one adds in the so-called hidden costs of war: lives, destruction of already existent infra-structure, materiel destroyed and replaced, resources depleted, civil unrest, etc one finds that the costs of wat are pretty large.
As well the de facto costs of gearing an economy to a war-likely footing only appears to "prime the pump." In actuality the cost of one stealth fighter and the technology and production involved deplete the real economy. The suggested amount of that is that for every one dollar spent on war equipment the domestic economy would provide at least five dollars of goods and services that are otherwise lost.
The entire Reagan-economy was based on tax-cuts for the wealthiest that they would "plow back" into the economy. They may have done, but the plow back occurred at levels of the economy that never "trickled down" to much of anyone. They were a figment of "investment." The "investment" was/is in more securities and larger trust funds for those who benefited.
And if you don't use the war materiel made then the same will apply. The planes, tanks, etc become obsolescent as they sit unused. They must then be replaced so 15 or 20 years later you go right back to the same destructive withdrawal of capital from the domestic economy.
Same is true of Star Wars and other "advanced" wartime technology. It sucks up a lot of creativity and resources and produces something that no one ever wants to use. It just sits there in the sky in a disintegrating orbit around the earth. Boy-toys on a colossal scale.
Nichole
The idea, if you could call it that, that war booosts the US economy is absurd to say the least. The US has spent billions on other countries. Feeding them, Protecting them, Helping them build or rebuild. North Korea is so F--- they rely on the US because they can't figure out how to grow enough rice. The US provides aid all over the world and hates war. I get tired of the rest of the world draining us and then talkin' smack. UP YOUR'S with a smile :laugh:
Quote from: Virginia Marie on March 05, 2009, 09:15:29 AM
The idea, if you could call it that, that war booosts the US economy is absurd to say the least. The US has spent billions on other countries. Feeding them, Protecting them, Helping them build or rebuild. North Korea is so F--- they rely on the US because they can't figure out how to grow enough rice. The US provides aid all over the world and hates war. I get tired of the rest of the world draining us and then talkin' smack. UP YOUR'S with a smile :laugh:
Our notions of which governments talk "smack" and which do not certainly differ somewhat, Virginia. From where I sit no governments consistently talk "smack" and threat more than that Of USA.
And, as an American, I also see some reason for other countries to fear us more than welcome us: our foreign policy is like grass in the wind, it changes direction at least every eight years if not more frequently. I mean in 1991 our diplomats were telling Saddam on the day before his invasion of Kuwait that we had no interest one way or another in what he did. Three days later we were decrying his invasion as illegal and a sign he was an outlaw. I mean, that's a rather schizophrenic set of circumstances, no?
And at the top of the list, which goverment is the only government to actually use nukes on another state? TYep, the precedent may cause some nervousness alright.
How often do we actually sit and reach understanding on methods and policy with our "friends?" And how often do we just decide we are going to do something?
As for "pouring money" we surely poured a lot after WWII into western Europe and would have poured more into eastern Europe had the Red Army not already been there. But those were policy decisions meant to shore-up governments that we were afraid would "become communist" if we didn't share some wealth. The trade surpluses we ran and the boost to the 1950s economy and our hegemony in Europe pretty much paid all of that back even if we didn't get gold. We got a lot more.
One can make an argument that in Iraq, and Afghnaistan the "contributions" have been minimal at best and they surely haven't stabilized a darned thing.
Nicaraugua has never reached a footing where it was when the Sandinistas originally deposed Somoza. Much of that thanks to our so-called "Contra War" whereby we poured a lot of money into a "resistance" that was almost 100% of our own making. Otherwise we've been noted for funding armies in the southern American hemisphere and propping up and seating dictatorships that basically ran their countries in ways United Fruit and Anaconda Copper and other major corps of those times found amenable.
I'm not certain that a lot of people see us as a friendly giant that just wants to get along with everyone else in the world.
Nichole
Many believe that war fuels the economy and point to WWII. But there was a period of mass unemployment after the war ended. The economy began to suffer again, till Korea. It picked up until that one ended. Then we went in a suffering economy until...... you guessed it. Viet Nam.
I am not advocating war. As the song says " War. What is it good for. Absolutely nothing". I support our troops, but not war. But it has been a source the stimulate the economy.
FEMA proved to be a joke under King George, but they had a good track record in the past. They have their purpose and when allowed to do help in disasters.
What would fuel the economy? Redirect the billions spent on war into health care and building jobs. Redirect the money for baling out big businesses into rebuilding the country. If those businesses are going to fail, no amount of money will help them.
I never was one that would not wish for a socialistic government, but the more I see now the more I lean that way. I always felt that a top down distribution was working, till I saw how much the top CEOs of failing businesses were making. It is obscene. Millions of dollars. :o But they cut the pay of the people on the front lines. Their own people suffer. ??? How does that help the business? By allowing the CEOs to keep their jobs.
But to create a socialistic government here would raise taxes on the people who could lest afford it. Should we become a Isolationist country? Wouldn't that allow people like Hitler to gain power? I don't know, but if we don't take care of us we will fall like Rome, the British Empire, Czarist Russian.
Does anyone reconize these words?
QuoteThat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Maybe it is time again.
Janet
Quote from: Janet Lynn on March 05, 2009, 10:25:10 AM
But to create a socialistic government here would raise taxes on the people who could lest afford it. ...
I don't know, but if we don't take care of us we will fall like Rome, the British Empire, Czarist Russian.
Does anyone reconize these words?
Maybe it is time again.
Janet
The first sentence I am just not understanding. Socialists governments raise taxes on those least able to afford them? How does that notion come to mind? I'm puzzled.
The second is the way of the world. Empires rise and empires fall. As one views empires through the gauze of history one often sees that the really great ones tend to have shorter and shorter lives as technology gets more sophisticated and widespread. Unless, of course, they manage to be closely enough situated to one another that one or more manage to destroy themselves and each other through conflict.
On that basis one would suppose that the American Empire is not long for the political reality.
Nichole
QuoteBut to create a socialistic government here would raise taxes on the people who could lest afford it.
Nichole, I am talking about America. The Big Corporations and Special Interests wouldn't allow Big Business to be taxed in order to support a socialistic government. Therefore the middle class would be taxed out of existence. Which is happening now as a matter of fact.
And may be it is time for a revamping of America. But we shall see what the next four years bring. Let us hope that President Obama is really going to change things. If he wants my vote next go round, I certainly hope so.
Janet
Quote from: Janet Lynn on March 05, 2009, 11:08:11 AM
Nichole, I am talking about America. The Big Corporations and Special Interests wouldn't allow Big Business to be taxed in order to support a socialistic government. Therefore the middle class would be taxed out of existence. Which is happening now as a matter of fact.
Janet
O, I see.
I don't live in the 1940's, 50's or 60's. I was born in the 60's but don't dwell there now. So what did it take to draw the US into war? An attack that killed 3,000 civilians? And how great is the economy now?