Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Is War Good For The Economy?
TraceOneInfinite:
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:
--- Quote from: virtuoso on July 06, 2007, 02:52:26 PM ---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."
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version