Is War Good For The Economy?

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

I've been researching this subject for quite some time, and I recently heard a very interesting arguement when I was listening to old archives of Harry Browne' libertarian talk show.  It's an analogy that comes from a French political analyst over 100 years ago, and I feel like it is an excellent example that supports our more righteous nature that wants to assume that war can't be good for the economy.

It's called the broken window theory.

A man is working in his shop, and a young boy takes a rock, and throws it through his window.  The people cheer, because they say that now the repair man that fixes windows will have a job.

However, we should be reminded of what we don't see.  What we don't see, is that the shop owner, instead of giving money to the repair man to fix the window, he could have taken that money and given it to the tailor to fix him a new suite.

^^That's it. 

So, comparing that analogy to today's world.  It goes like this.  Yes, war helps SOME sections of the economy.  Like those who invest in war, bombs, reconstruction, etc. they will see their economy increase.  However, that same money could have gone to some other industry or section of the economy that could have improved our lives in a better way.

[virtuoso]

Definitely read Orwell's take on this infinite but of course the military economy is thriving. in fact here is a re up of some quotes from there

"…the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival."

"The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations."

"But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction — indeed, in some sense was the destruction — of a hierarchical society."

"For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away."

"The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed."

[Narrator]

I dunno if it's good for the economy, but it sure is good for my plans to implement Pan-African Socialism, which is the only viable solution to the domination of the economy by the white man and Jews.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

Definitely read Orwell's take on this infinite but of course the military economy is thriving. in fact here is a re up of some quotes from there

"…the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival."

"The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations."

"But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction — indeed, in some sense was the destruction — of a hierarchical society."

"For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away."

"The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed."

Where can I read more about Orwell's explaination of war's effect on the economy?

[Teddy Roosevelt]

It's questionable. On the short hand it is, especially for big businesses and manufacturers. But in the long run when money is spent and circulated outside of where it's made, then the economy is set to go down.

[Corona and Porn]

I KNOW I SPEND CRAZY GUAP ON AMMO AND SHIT WHEN I'M BEEFIN

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

It's questionable. On the short hand it is, especially for big businesses and manufacturers. But in the long run when money is spent and circulated outside of where it's made, then the economy is set to go down.

I also heard from Harry Browne's investment show, that it actually doesn't leave the economy.  Because, something like they spend in dollars, so they have to sell those dollars into their own money, and somehow that keeps the dollar circulating, or they invest it into American businesses.  So it has something to do with the strength of the dollar. 

Can't say I really understood what he was saying, and he was mainly trying to dispell the theories that American setting up companies in places like India isn't really bad for the economy.  He also said that America is becoming more of a service company and placing our manufacturing base in other countries, and he said there's nothing wrong with that; that it actually means that we've elevated ourselves to yet another higher level of prosperity than manufacturing based countries.

[Teddy Roosevelt]

It's questionable. On the short hand it is, especially for big businesses and manufacturers. But in the long run when money is spent and circulated outside of where it's made, then the economy is set to go down.

I also heard from Harry Browne's investment show, that it actually doesn't leave the economy.  Because, something like they spend in dollars, so they have to sell those dollars into their own money, and somehow that keeps the dollar circulating, or they invest it into American businesses.  So it has something to do with the strength of the dollar. 

Can't say I really understood what he was saying, and he was mainly trying to dispell the theories that American setting up companies in places like India isn't really bad for the economy.  He also said that America is becoming more of a service company and placing our manufacturing base in other countries, and he said there's nothing wrong with that; that it actually means that we've elevated ourselves to yet another higher level of prosperity than manufacturing based countries.

What he's talking about it a load of bull shit. If jobs are given overseas for American companies, how does the average American benefit? Cheaper products, yes, but it also drives down wages domestically when people are willing to do it cheaper overseas. Not to mention unemployment goes up and tax payers are left to pay unemployment benefits, food stamps, welfare, etc. Mean while the companies get richer and richer.

[virtuoso]

Infinite type in Orwell's take on war on google also of course read 1984 because that is where those quotes came from. As far as outsourcing of products, what it does it reduce real wealth because a lot of service sector jobs are poorly paid due to the fact that they are unskilled jobs. Plus of course you have to view in terms of a geopolitical sense. America has gone from being one of the strongest most self sufficient nations on planet earth to having a great dependency on other nations for it's products. If you think about outsourcing in terms of a circulation diagram to (which is just an economic model) there is not the continual circulation of money there is mass leakages. Yes big business has a major advantage because they massively save money but the people of America are not feeling this benefit. Even good old Haliburton is packing up and moving to Dubai and yet I am still going to see Peons like Real American tell me they support that!

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

So the people that lost their jobs as a result of outsourcing, couldn't they hypothetically find jobs somewhere else?

You see the jobs being lost, but you have to think about what you don't see.  What you don't see, is that now that person can move to a job in another section of the economy, such as a service job that will help increase luxury in people's lives, rather than a manufacturing job that is just simply providing the basic essentials for someone's life.  When service jobs and luxury are increasing this is a sign of a higher standard of living.

[Jip]

wars good for the economy if you win

if not then the economy is in the shitter

just ask germany, they know how to lose a war

[virtuoso]

The economy is weakened by massive trade deficits
Weakened by it's massive over dependency on other nations
As for the choice of service sector jobs, the vast majority of service sector jobs are poorly paid, forcing people into a position where they have to take a service sector job is not choice. Also the reason why outsourcing is so cancerous, is that any jobs can suddenly be lost, you have a service sector, yet on the back of it, you have the very real danger of also those jobs being outsourced. However even more importantly, with the national debt as it is, output is vital to the economy, the more manufacturing is lost the less output and like I said, the less real value, i.e. less is being produced, more is being depended on from cheap imports.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

The economy is weakened by massive trade deficits
Weakened by it's massive over dependency on other nations
As for the choice of service sector jobs, the vast majority of service sector jobs are poorly paid, forcing people into a position where they have to take a service sector job is not choice. Also the reason why outsourcing is so cancerous, is that any jobs can suddenly be lost, you have a service sector, yet on the back of it, you have the very real danger of also those jobs being outsourced. However even more importantly, with the national debt as it is, output is vital to the economy, the more manufacturing is lost the less output and like I said, the less real value, i.e. less is being produced, more is being depended on from cheap imports.

You can't assume that the service sector job will be worse than the previously held manufacturing job.  It could be equal or even better.  Also, a service job means that we are recieving more luxury and living at a higher standard.  I don't see why it makes such a difference whether an American manufacturing plant is placed in Iowa or in Indonesia, we will still get use of the products, and if it's in Indonesia then the products will be available at a cheaper price, which means people will have more money to spend on luxury items to increase their standard of living.

[virtuoso]

No because the money being spent in the service sector is being spent courtesy of a plentiful money supply, courtesy of a dollar which has been massively devalued due to the mass outsourcing and thus trade deficit. That is not a greater standard of living it's a sleight of hand when people see all of this "money". Also you seem to miss an even bigger point, most people don't have this wealth, it has been borrowed, what do you think will happen when the creditors decide to pull the plug?

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

No because the money being spent in the service sector is being spent courtesy of a plentiful money supply, courtesy of a dollar which has been massively devalued due to the mass outsourcing and thus trade deficit. That is not a greater standard of living it's a sleight of hand when people see all of this "money".

Actually, the Federal Reserve could create even more money out of thin air and inject it into the system, and as long as the DEMAND for money is strong, then the economy will thrive.  It's about balancing the supply and demand in order to control inflation.  The economic problem takes place when people are insecure about their future, and so they start hoarding their wealth, and saving it in banks, and spending decreases; then you have a problem... and then the Fed will usually not be as likely to inject the economy with more money during those times.

Government intervention is actually what often damages the economy.  When they put so many regulations on businesses it damages their effectiveness and often they have to go oversea's to escape those handicaps placed on them by the government.

This is why I am not a Republican or a Liberal, but rather I support the Libertarian party in America.  Because liberal's want the government to solve all our problems, when in reality they are the problem, and they need to get out of our way.  And Republicans are war mongering Zionist who talk about small government but end up enhancing the size of government even more then Democrats (remember, it was actually Clinton that ran a surplus, while Bush on the other hand has been spending out of control).