The Cat is out of the Bag

**Philosophickle** · October 12th 2009, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Chuckg

That's not true at all. If it were, then why is war-torn Africa one of the poorest places in the world? Neither World Wars were products were of depression(though Hitler was helped to power by one).

You are confusing "economic downturns contribute to wars" with "all wars are the direct result of economic downturns". Of course there are other reasons wars are fought. That isn't the point. The point is that there are financial incentives for a govt., and especially govts that find themselves with ties between corporate institutions and the state-funded military, to fund military operations. On this point American political parties are essentially in agreement. Previous peace-hawks like Dianne Feinstein are now on record urging the president to escalate the war in Afghanistan while her husband rakes in billions from military contracts. This is why we won't see the end of war during a recession.

**Chuckg** · October 12th 2009, 03:19 PM

No, I am responding to the statement:

What troubles me is that history shows a disturbing trend -- economic failure, world war, new global political and financial system.

A statement I whole heartedly believe is false. War is also most definitely not profitable, as most economic booms occur AFTER war occurs, not during or before. What you are quoting with that article is that some people in power abuse that power to make money during wars.

**Philosophickle** · October 12th 2009, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Chuckg

A statement I whole heartedly believe is false. War is also most definitely not profitable, as most economic booms occur AFTER war occurs, not during or before.

That's not quite accurate. While it isn't lasting economic growth, war provides high employment and general consumer satisfaction. And there really isn't a boom that follows from war. If you're thinking of WW2, that economic boom for America was a special case because we were a country that had a high capacity for manufacturing, and Europe was in need of serious rebuilding. This led to a massive transfer of wealth to the United States. Most wars don't result in economic booms like that.

What you are quoting with that article is that some people in power abuse that power to make money during wars.

I think you misunderstand. America has a large military infrastructure. Wars put a lot of people to work. Having a lot of people working is good for a sitting politician, and during times of economic downturn, especially potentially devastating downturns like the one we are experiencing where we have high (ten percent) unemployment is motivation to keep troops out in the field and factories stateside churning out supplies for said troops. There definitely is a connection between the twilight of empire and increasing foreign military involvement. Rome, Britain, Russia, the US and soon to be China are all prime examples.

**Chuckg** · October 12th 2009, 04:58 PM

That's not quite accurate. While it isn't lasting economic growth, war provides high employment and general consumer satisfaction. And there really isn't a boom that follows from war. If you're thinking of WW2, that economic boom for America was a special case because we were a country that had a high capacity for manufacturing, and Europe was in need of serious rebuilding. This led to a massive transfer of wealth to the United States. Most wars don't result in economic booms like that.

I'm not speaking to specific booms, and perhaps worded myself incorrectly. After war, troops where drafted return to the work place and begin to contribute once more, thus boosting growth much more than the government spending for the war could. While it is not a boom on the level of WW2, for the most part after a war, as people return to the workplace, growth is higher than the years during the war. I agree with you on the employment issue during war, but I do challenge consumer satisfaction statement, and believe it is much more patriotism, so not an accurate gauge of consumer satisfaction.

I think you misunderstand. America has a large military infrastructure. Wars put a lot of people to work. Having a lot of people working is good for a sitting politician, and during times of economic downturn, especially potentially devastating downturns like the one we are experiencing where we have high (ten percent) unemployment is motivation to keep troops out in the field and factories stateside churning out supplies for said troops. There definitely is a connection between the twilight of empire and increasing foreign military involvement. Rome, Britain, Russia, the US and soon to be China are all prime examples.

I understand fully what you are trying to say here, but I do not think that the military market is large enough to do what you are claiming it is doing, essentially keeping all these people employed. Here is 2008's report on largest employers and strongest markets: http://books.google.com/books?id=Qgo...loyers&f=false I don't see any military companies there. Also, all of those empires that you have listed (save the US and China, as they have not yet run their course) also had strong foreign military involvement prior to their collapse.

**seanD** · October 22nd 2009, 03:53 AM

More push to drop the US dollar and head towards a global financial system. Strange that while global governments discuss this in private, they deny in public that plans to implement this even exists. I guess it would be a necessity as to not cause panic in the global markets, while they gradually implement the plan into transition. You hear absolutely nothing about this in mainstream media, where you would think aspiring journalists would be all over this sensational news. Maybe they just don't know about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBDPGkW6SCU