Can anyone explain how come US economy is in great shape amidst war in Iraq

Common fallacy.

War is never good business, it is just the debt spending which props up an economy (temporarily). It would be better to use that debt spending to do anything *other* than wage a war.

The problem with wartime spending is that you are creating things that are going to blow up and things that you are not going to need later. If wartime spending was a good idea, then we could save an economy by building TV's and refrigerators, and taking them out to sea and pushing them overboard.

People loved saying this about the WWII economy, and it made just as little sense then as it does now, and most rational economists reject the idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

War is good business for those who profit from War.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as circles of logic go, that is an awfully tight loop!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Puppet-shows are good for those who profit from puppet-shows!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed, puppeteers try to have as many puppet shows as they can.

 

Ye're right in sentiment, but you said it wrongly ...as you can see from those who are making fun of your post.

You should have said, "War is good business for capitalist nations and all of their people who actually work for a living." War generates innumerable opportunities to those capitalist companies who are willing and able to take advantage of it. The workers of those companies benefit by obvious connection.

Baron Max

 

It is all relative, isn't it? For the corporations making the wargoods it is sure a good business. For people being employed in otherwise unneccesery industries, it is a good deal.

For the government taking away the people's attention from domestic issues, a good deal.

That it is wasted money as you said? True, but in politics power comes before economy...

 

Absolutely.

Off-topic: The thing that drives me mad about politics (and it is human nature, so it is to be expected) is that the party *not in power* LOVES to see bad things happen to their own country and people, because it might put them back in power. Both sides are guilty of this very normal (albeit ugly) human trait. I wish they would fight to overcome this.

As for the government wanting to take people's attention away from domestic issues, I disagree. Government always wants to highlight the bad news if it is out of power, and the good news if it is in power. There is no trend towards or away from domestic issues. Politicians are now professionals, and they want to keep their jobs. We need to change this system if we are going to ever expect the party *out of power* to start pointing out good news, or the party *in power* to start pointing out bad news. It really is as simple as that.

No Republican wants this war to continue. They all wish that the entire Middle East would embrace democracy, convert to Christianity, and get involved with the move towards globalization. If you think that Republicans wake up, rub their evil hands together, and hope to kill more people to make a buck, then you have let your love-of-party destroy your ability to reason. Bush was never happier than when he stood on that Aircraft Carrier and intimated that the end of "major hostilities" was over. And he has never looked more haggard than all the days since, with the war continuing on.

I think the point that a lot of the "military-industrial-complex" conspiracy theorists are trying to make is that the arms makers feel a twinge of glee when wars strike up. I do not doubt that this happens, I have felt a similar feeling several times. I used to work as a salvage specialist with a scuba-diving outfit. I made a ton of money when hurricanes ripped through the East Coast. So, during hurricane season, a part of me felt a desire for these destructive monsters that were sure to cause deaths and billions in losses. I hated that part of me, but I felt it. And when the hurricanes came, that part of me was glad... and I hated it even more.

I'm sure that is what the CEO's of these companies wrestle with. Maybe they are worse people than myself, and they feel it more and hate it less. Maybe they are better people than myself, and they feel it less and hate it more. But I don't believe the caricature of these evil henchmen smoking cigars and plotting the deaths of thousands for the glory of a buck. I bet most fool themselves into feeling good about themselves for performing their "patriotic duty".

Anyway, hyperbole never gets you anywhere but lost and confused.

 

Well, yes, but in certain situation, no. Let's say Iraq for the Dems. There is simply NO good solutions, so even if they win the next presidential race, they are going to preside over a lose-lose situation.

This is true in true democracies, but not in the USA. Since there are no governments waiting to get on power but only one government/ruling class with both parties in their pockets, they don't want to highlight anything bad. That's why you get circus (TV shows) and breed (fast food) for almost free...

Sure there is. For the next 2 years instead of real issues, the media will chew on the candidates, then whoever wins nothing will change. But for 2 years the general public was hoping...

Also when was the last time when you actually heard the word oil mentioned with Iraq? Quite rare... How about debtbased economy? (negative savings rate) How about REAL unemployment? Decreasing union membership? Healthcare reform??

No, you get circus (Anna Nicole is dead!!!) and mindless "debates" on political shows...

Hey, I am a logical Republican with 100 000 shares of Halliburton stocks. War has been good for my shares...

The truth is that we big fatcats are shielded from the real danger/sacrifices of any war. Our sons don't go to wars, they go to Ivy league colleges.

I just read an article on Nigeria in the National Geographic. Do you think big oilcompanies care about the local people? They pay off the leadership and get away with murder...

I do exist, you know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have you ever seen the CEO of Exxon?

http://www.bellaciao.org/en/IMG/jpg/exxon_ceo-s.jpg

 

Syzygys, I can't make heads or tails of your post, sorry. Something about having to read each of my sentences out of context, and they you posting something about each sentence... it just seems like an argumentative style for scoring points, rather than a fair trade of differing opinions.

I would rather read a coherent paragraph of your ideas than get into one of those styles of debates.

The general point I come away with, after trying really hard to understand your collection of snippets, is that you think the world is run by overweight people with no morals, and that it is funny to say this while also pretending to be one of these people? Please help.

 

Well, yes, I was playing my alterego for the A Logical Republican thread.

But the point again is, the ruling class is shielded from the "inconveniencies" of global warming,war, high oilprices, etc. And morals? Come on...Profit and power. Those are their driving forces, why would they care about morals??

Read the lives of Carnegie and the other robber barons. First they made as much profit as it was possible, then they started to do charity, when they realized there WAS such a thing as too much money. Same with Gates today.
Carnegie was screwing his workers, Gates has been screwing his competitors with an inferior product, then they try to play the nice guy.

Now that the oil companies made the biggest profit ever (and threatened with windfall taxes) they will throw a little bone to the charity department...

 

Do you think the producers or the consumers are the ones in control of a capitalist system?

And what guiding forces do you think should guide a market other than the profit motive? Do you think we could settle on a universal standard of mores, and have everyone motivated by unselfish urges?

I guess I'm curious as to what you would put in its place once you tore down our current system. A feudal one? A communal one?

 

Producers and owners of the resources...

Well, there should be some things more important than profits. How about survival? National security? Or just plain, good old democracy? Look at the scandinavian countries for an example...

Here is a simple example, peakoil. The US got 2 wake up calls in the 70s. Did they wake up? Sure not. Carter was the only decent president seeing the problem, but his idea (US being energy independent) never got achieved and nobody really tried.

We had electric cars 10 years ago!! And big oil simply killed the idea. Why? Because it would have made profit for someone else!

Through the 90s oil was cheap, but that was the time to get ready. How did we get ready? By inventing Humvees...'

Now let's look at Brazil. Back in the 70s it wasn't even a democracy, but the rulers of Brazil saw the problem and acted on it, national interest, before companies interest. So today they have cars running on ethanol, and they don't have to invade other countries for their natural resources...

Are you getting the picture???

In a true democracy the government works for the people. Not for powerful corporations... Slight difference...

There is nothing wrong with selfinterest, but sometimes it has to be directed. Of course companies are selfish. That's why we regulate them, so they don't act against the people...

When did I indicate tearing it down? Reforming it, yes. If we call it a democracy, it sure better be a democracy. Not a corporate plutocracy...

 

No, in a true democracy the government IS the people. You're thinking of a republic.

 

Oh, the irony: Democrats being Republicans.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I disagree. I think the consumers have all the power right now.

While you complain about how big and mean the owners of capital are, they sit around in boardrooms and complain about how fickle and hard-to-please WE are. They are constantly trying to figure out what makes us happy, and how to deliver it faster than their competition.

The reason electric cars never caught on has nothing to do with big oil. Big oil doesn't make cars, the automakers do. And the automakers want to sell as many cars as possible, plain and simple. It is because of WE, the consumers, that they keep cranking out vehicles that run on cheap fuel, instead of electric cars that we have to remember to plug in each night, and only go 200 miles on a charge, and bog down when filled with groceries.

Now, I'm well aware of the advances being made with these technologies, and someday electric, hybrid, or hydrogen cars will be superior to gas-powered cars, but it isn't right now. Batteries need to get cheaper and better (there are some huge strides being made as we speak, especially with instantly-recharged batteries that work more like capacitors). And we need to get our power production moved to nuclear, or we are just passing the buck.

Only since the war in Iraq has the issue of oil dependence gained enough favor to move some hybrids. The demand is finally being made BY THE CONSUMERS, so the producers are going to try to fill that demand, or perish. Now we are getting small "cross-overs" and hybrids galore. Why do this if "big oil" is in charge of car design? Seriously, you don't have a leg to stand on here.

Look at how people moved away from Disney and to Pixar for their cartoon-movie entertainment. Where was Disney's power to control the market? How did Pixar FORCE people to switch? Because, according to you, the consumer is powerless.

How has Apple dominated with the iPod when Bill Gates REALLY wants all of this business? Gates has more money, more capital, HE should be able to control the economy, as you say. Instead, the Zune languishes, and the iPod dominates. Hmmm... maybe the consumer is in control?

Do you think that reality TV is popular because some corporation decided to MAKE it popular? No, it is popular because most people, right now, want to watch reality TV. So it is being supplied. The same goes for the bad news on local News Stations. This is what people want to see, which is why they show it.

If you were correct, and I was wrong, we would see a much different world around us than the one we see. There would be no need to make things better, stronger, faster, cheaper, etc... There would just be a bunch of men living a hedonistic life and throwing us the crumbs. Instead, we have a culture in my country where almost everyone is living a hedonistic life, and a few people have decided that they don't mind living off of the free crumbs, so they do that instead.

 

And if the government IS the people, don't they also work for the people?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, you are mixing up different industries. Your example below in entertainment, and I am talking about energy.

Tell me how the costumers were ruling last year when we were paying 3+ dollars per gallon for gas?

You really have a gloirified picture of a corporate guy. They would sell you shit (quite often they do) if they can get away with it. Sure when there is competition in an industry then the costumer is the winner.

Go watch the movie Who killed the electric car? and report back what you saw.

If you are already at it, check out why the electric streetcars disappeared in the 50-70s from American cities...

You see, Americans are crazy about leadership. Occasionally the leadership has to LEAD, just like in the case of Brazil back in the 70s. Do you think there was need for ethanol cars back then? But they were thinking of long term...

Because finally the oilprices caught up with the costumers.

I addressed this at the beginning of my post. This is entertainment. You can live without entertainment. You can't live without energy...

Finally a good example. So you think Gates was thinking back in the 70s just how could he make a product that statisfies the costumers? The first Windows were a piece of shits. Gates was thinking how he could eliminate competition which he did. Microsoft needed a good 20 years finally making a usable product...

He oftentimes does. You never heard of Microsoft antitrust case, have you?

Again, entertainment. We can live without Reality TV...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What you forgot about monopol situation vs. competition. Think about your examples and you you will see the difference....

Also don't forget sometimes there are cartells so just because it looks like competition, it doesn't always like that...

 

Sorry syzygys, I can't read posts like that. I assume you have some wonderful points to make in there, and leave it at that.

 

In short, who rules a certain industry (producers or costumers) depends on if they have monopoly or they have real competition...

 

When have we ever had a monopoly that artificially propped up prices and was able to keep competitors out? I can't think of a single one in a free market. Perhaps a few governmental agencies would qualify, but that is bureaucracy, not capitalism, and government, not corporation. Help me out here.