how many of you know that politicians like War because it boosts the country's patriotic behavior and they think warring will boost the economy? theres wasnt any WMDs in Iraq, they just wanted to secure the oil. hussein had cut a deal with bush long before he was captured. your thoughts on this ?
I don't think the war in Iraq was used to boost the economy, that war is too small. I think the war in Iraq has value to distract the American public from their really suckie economic situation. That's the real value of this war.
Wrong. War is a drain on the economy. Sure it benefits specific sectors of the economy, such as those that provide munitions, uniforms, or other supplies to the military. But all those things cost money that could have been spent in more productive ways. Wars were profitable in the days when the victorious nation would demand a tribute or just sack the cities of their enemies. But those days are gone.
In a way WWII raised the econmey for US... (hopes he rembered right from boring US history) because the US sold good to both sides even when It enter the war...
Wrong. War is a drain on the economy. Sure it benefits specific sectors of the economy, such as those that provide munitions, uniforms, or other supplies to the military. But all those things cost money that could have been spent in more productive ways. Wars were profitable in the days when the victorious nation would demand a tribute or just sack the cities of their enemies. But those days are gone. Wrong, this has been proven incorrect by the US; one of the major reasons why the US is so powerful today is because of WWI, and WWII. The US became the world’s largest creditor, thus degrading the European empires power significantly, and post-WWII America’s industrial strength was unparalleled in the world. If WWII did not happen the US wouldn’t have gotten out of the depression for a long, very long while. So no Mad, open those American history books.
Not the economy overall. When politicans push for war for economic reasons it is never to benefit the economy as a whole or help the people but instead to help a select few. I had a friend who has an mba and interviewed with one of the top oil companies in the United States. He asked them about the war in Iraq's impact on their business. They said war was good for business because it increase their margin. Companies that make bombs and guns for the miltary rely on war to keep their industry afloat at all. Mccaurhter Douglas, Westinghouse and others are routinly tied into politics favoring war. Espcially companies that make bombs....the reason being if there is no war to use their product there would be no more need to buy bombs.
WW one and two benefitted the US because, except for Pearl Harbor, they weren't fought here. This meant that the rest of the industrialized world was blown to crap while the US was unscathed. I was speaking in general terms on the overall effect of war. Of course a war can improve one's relative position, if you can severely handicap your competitors a war might benefit a nation. But the normal argument made is that war itself benefits the economy by increasing demand for munitions, steel, etc. That argument is just typical Keynesian economics, increased government spending=economic growth. This leaves out the concept of oportunity cost, that the money spent on the war could have been used for something more productive.
This meant that the rest of the industrialized world was blown to crap while the US was unscathed. I was speaking in general terms on the overall effect of war. True it depends on how much you were actually physically touched by war, and true for the most part apart from shipping escaped the brute war of Europe. But your statement was blanket, stating that war= bad for economy. The US wouldn’t nearly as relevant as she is today if it wasn’t for war. But the normal argument made is that war itself benefits the economy by increasing demand for munitions, steel, etc. That argument is just typical Keynesian economics, increased government spending=economic growth. This leaves out the concept of oportunity cost, that the money spent on the war could have been used for something more productive. But the problem with that argument is for instance during the Depression the private sector failed to spur demand and a whole decade went without any real economic advance. WWII saved America’s hide from a fate much worse. Keynesian economics comes into play when the economic system (capitalism) fails itself. Something more productive didn’t exist in 1939 America.
I suppose that Government spending can be used to "prime the pump" and get things rolling during a period of low economic activity where a vicious cycle has set in. But those are special circumstances. Still, I'll revise my original statement. War is rarely good for the economy. The Iraq war sure as hell hasn't been.
I suppose that Government spending can be used to "prime the pump" and get things rolling during a period of low economic activity where a vicious cycle has set in. In today’s neo-liberalist world that’s heresy! The problem is that the eventuality of liberalist economics is that eventually fail due to overproduction, and debt. Neo-Keynesian imo is on the way, Globalization may fail. War is rarely good for the economy. The Iraq war sure as hell hasn't been. War is good for a nation, if it wasn’t for War England would not have become the hegemonic power of the world, against the Spanish, Dutch, and French. Was that bad for England? I would vouch to say no, its relatively shortsighted to say definitively that war is bad for the economy, in the short term…duh! But nations usually do not start wars for short term gain. The Iraq was has been a economic boon, you must understand that in this world states no longer benefit they are the whore to corporate interests. Those corporate interests are now the hegemon, Iraq has been a drain on the US tax payer, but you are subsidizing corporate welfare…that’s why I laugh at you Americans (the people) you were played!
