Our perpetual war as an economic stimulus

[TalkingDog]

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/12/has-american-military-spending-really.html


This is a major issue—major like a hole in the head: The United States spends over 6% of its GDP on the military—more, if you add the money spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (And by the way: The self-delusion that keeps those two wars “off the books”? Astonishing—but that’s for another time.)

Since the U.S. is the largest economy in the world, that +6% means that America spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined—with room to spare.

Right there, you know something’s gone horribly wrong.

In Falling Forward, I argued that this enormous military created the need to find a new enemy, now that the Soviet Union is no more, and the nations of the former Warsaw Pact are busy trying to join NATO, rather than fight it.




I've been pondering this for quite a while. Bringing the troops home would only add to the burden on the jobs market. Of course I was called a conspiracy theory nut in a another thread for suggesting that governments used war as economic stimulus.

[freshwest]

1. You're not crazy, there are people who believe the old story that war is good for the economy.

As far as bringing the troops home having a negative impact on the job market, it wasn't when soldiers came back from any war, especially WW2. But as they re-entered the job market, there was also a lot of government investment in infrastructure, and these are the jobs that they could fill the best. And there was a lot of hiring for all kinds of public jobs. It's not happening because the right refuses to allow it.

[ngant17]

2. war is more economical than peace?

Only if you can successfully occupy and plunder the natural resources of the country which is being invaded. And only if you ignore the adverse economic reaction facing the inhabitants of said invaded/occupied country.

Example: Hitler's war against the Soviet Union/Russia (22 Jun 1941), if it was successful, it might have been an economic stimulus for the Germans. Not for the hundreds of thousands of German KIAs, of course. That's the cost of doing "business". However, in any case it could not have economically benefited the Russians, in either the civilian or military sector. They would have been liquidated and never factored into the German's economic equation. Maybe for some designer lamp shades or what pitiful little money they could have pulled out of the dead.

So there are at least two sides of the coin here. It depends on the constraints of your argument. How do you define success? War is profitable only in a specific way, benefiting a smaller sector of the national economy, and only in the short term.

An economy based on peace, international cooperation and peaceful coexistence is far more profitable to more people in the long run.

Suppose it costs $30 million dollars to build one battle tank. It would more cost-effective if we lived in a perpetual war economy than if the tank was only going to be used sporadically in occasional wars and invasions of foreign countries.

OTOH suppose a 40-unit hospital costs in the neighborhood of $25-$30 million. Basically the same as one tank used by the military. It would be an economic stimulus for a greater number of people, whether we were in a perpetual war economy or a perpetual peace economy.

[jeanpalmer]

3. Hundreds of thousands of people

now depend on war for employment. What would they do if the war racket was shut down?

David Broder recently suggested the economic stimulus effect as a reason for attacking Iran.

[ngant17]

4. turning swords into plowshares might be a good start

anyone dependent upon this war economy is directly or indirectly working for the federal government. They are on welfare within the military industrial complex. It would be a good thing to get them off this kind of welfare and doing something productive instead, even if it means making less money.

[mdmc]

5. ..