Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic costs of war

watson.brown.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#461

Post by archibaldJ »

el_jay wrote: post #118

To those here riffing on the theme of “this misrepresents the volume and beneficiaries of the transactions involved” - you’re not wrong. Accurate representation of public info like this is a top organisational problem for our species at the moment. But I do think you miss the point, so aptly put by Mr Eisenhower: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a thef…

I hope one day we will come to some form of collective enlightenment.

I have always wondered, from an evolutionary perspective, what is the underlying thing that encourages the emergent collectivism of unicellular oragnisms that eventually gave rise to us? Could that be something related to consciousness in a way we do not yet understand?

Would it be possible to replicate a phenomenology similiar to that which drives billions of cells to collaborate (and act together to help "the organism" to stay alive) to occur at the species level so there'll be no more wars and conflicts as we help one another to live more fulfilling lives? (e.g. through the utilization of psychedelics and BCI?)

I think what made humans special is that perhaps we're already half-way there. Unlike other animals, we collabrate with one another at a much greater scale, and have accomplished so many unthinkable things so far.

We are perhaps at a unique point in history after enjoying so long the state of being post-animals that we're finally starting to reflect what it means to go beyond all the humans conflicts and shenanigans.

Re: Economic costs of war

#462

Post by Clubber »

asdff wrote: post #394
markus_zhang wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowadays it's already difficult if not impossible. In the age of big data and open manipulation, there is zero incentive for the politicians, corporations and media to promote independent thought for ordinary people, or to put more precisely only independent thoughts that benefit their agendas. The same goes to millions of middle class employees of those entities. They might want to teach independent thoughts to thei…

The good news is there are more independent thoughts these days. 70 years ago it was hard having independent thoughts when it was three channels on TV and two newspapers and everyone listened to the same couple of popular artists. Back then, if you were too independent you would get beat up after class or worse.

This is spot on. As aggravating as YouTube censorship is, it's given the power of the press back to the people, if not just for a little bit. This flew under everyone's radar I think and the powers who typically control the news have been scrambling to regain control.

Re: Economic costs of war

#463

Post by ip26 »

symlinkk wrote: post #341
foolinaround wrote: post #253

A point no one seems to be making is that the $6.4T - a good amount of it just did not vanish... it just found its way into the employees of the state , the war industrial complex seen in the posh houses around the beltway and beyond... it just did not reach all the Americans... those that made bank will no doubt be incentivized to keep up the charade.. the scary part to me is what they are going to cook up next to k…

I’ve never heard of “posh houses in the beltway” that are owned by people involved in defense, yet you and another poster both brought this up. Is this actually a thing?

DC property is very expensive. Average home price is over a million. SF is probably worse, but that isn’t really the point.

Re: Economic costs of war

#464

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

s5300 wrote: post #124
pessimizer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistics are not intuitive, and it's the assumption that they are that leads people into error.

No, not all statistics are intuitive, definitely a reason why there's statistics, and then engineering statistics in most colleges. However, the simpler parts/beginning of either course... really do seem like they should be intuitive to anybody who made it with a D through middle school math. Basic applied ratios and such. Like the fact near 5 billion covid vaccines have been administered worldwide now and there are…

> there are still people vehemently arguing about the horrible things that are going to happen to them specifically if they get a vaccine...

Can you make a steel man argument on their behalf?

Or is that so preposterous that it beneath you and wouldn’t waste your time on that?

Because I’m starting to wonder if people with strong opinions like yours seems to be really are any different than the true believers on “the other side”. Or if you just feel confident in your echo chamber as “unquestionably right” because you (or I) aren’t questioned.

I find the more I know about a topic the less I make absolutes like the one I quoted. You can’t make legitimate arguments against the covid vaccines? Shouldn’t we all be able to?

Re: Economic costs of war

#465

Post by mannykannot »

mc32 wrote: post #366
dragonwriter wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gulf War One, we went in, did the job and got out. No, we didn't, we were perpetually militarily engaged in Iraq, at a lower level, between the 1991 war and the 2003 war. We weren't occupying or administering Iraq, but we didn't leave, either. > Let's go back to congress needing to authorize wars Both of the long wars started under Bush had Congressional authorization.

>We weren't occupying or administering Iraq, but we didn't leave, either. I mean, we never left Germany or S. Korea, so... Playing big brother to Q8? I'm not mad. Like other countries, we can pick sides and aid whatever side we think has our interest. I'm not interested in intervening with infantry and all the necessary materiel unless it's to defend ourselves from grave danger. Especially avoid stupid the boondoggle…

> True, but they gave him blanket authorization for use of military force (open ended) rather than a declaration of war), this open-endedness allowed Obama! to use the same AUMF to engage in further conflict.

If anything, your points here only go to demonstrate how irrelevant the nominal power of congressional authorization is, in the current political climate (and for most of the history of the republic.)

What makes it mostly irrelevant is that almost any representative voting for caution will be tarred with the "soft on America's enemies" brush, marginalized, and quickly removed from office. That's democracy in action, and it has been that way, for the most part, since the founding of the nation.

What kept the USA in Afghanistan, and the USSR before, was a form of sunk cost fallacy (in blood more than dollars), in which nation-building became more of a prayer for a non-catastrophic exit than an arrogant goal of a self-appointed elite.

Re: Economic costs of war

#466

Post by oh_sigh »

mrleinad wrote: post #93
oh_sigh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with the current system. $6.4T over 20 years = $340B/yr. The US spends 2x that per year just for medicare, which only covers approximately 20% of the population.

Not everyone has to use it, private and public systems can coexist, as it works in many countries.

Sure, but would you consider 30% coverage from the government to be "universal healthcare"? Because that's what you get for $900B/yr.

And we already have a public/private mix of healthcare with medicare/medicaid/ACA/workplace offered healthcare. That system, today, covers 90% of the population.

Re: Economic costs of war

#467

Post by vxNsr »

_9rq6 wrote: post #457
foolinaround wrote: post #253

A point no one seems to be making is that the $6.4T - a good amount of it just did not vanish... it just found its way into the employees of the state , the war industrial complex seen in the posh houses around the beltway and beyond... it just did not reach all the Americans... those that made bank will no doubt be incentivized to keep up the charade.. the scary part to me is what they are going to cook up next to k…

Yes this is it. American taxpayer money went to americans mostly and some of its allies. 6.4T just did not go to poor communities of color.

> 6.4T just did not go to poor communities of color.

why? Do they not have jobs? How do you know none of that money went to employing POC?

Re: Economic costs of war

#468

Post by Godel_unicode »

adventured wrote: post #289
grecy wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's go back to congress needing to authorize wars and give them sole war-powers The issue there is the massive conflict of interest and legal bribery. Members of congress are getting obscenely rich from the Military Industrial Complex and their "campaign contributions". Their bank accounts want more wars.

> Members of congress are getting obscenely rich from the Military Industrial Complex and their "campaign contributions". Please explain for me how that is so, without diverting into claiming that they're being handed tens of millions of dollars secretly under the table. I'm familiar with how campaign contributions work and the legal regulations involved, including what they're allowed to do - and not do - with the m…

People have made much about how the Pelosi fortune has grown in the last 20 years, but they seem to have overlooked the fact that they would actually have done better to just invest in the S&P500.

Re: Economic costs of war

#469

Post by mason55 »

908B64B197 wrote: post #393
boplicity wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That suggests that the Taliban, for good or ill, have more legitimacy in the eyes of Afghanis, No, I would say that the Afghanis were literally told that they were going to eventually lose the war and that the Taliban would eventually win. The people put in the position to fight the Taliban made the sensible choice to lose peacefully, as opposed to risking their lives for a lost cause.

> the sensible choice to lose peacefully, as opposed to risking their lives for a lost cause. I wonder how long they cashed their checks, knowing full well they were going to surrender immediately as soon as the US was going to pull out. Or better, despite not ever having the intention of fighting (or even agreeing with the Taliban), claiming persecution to hustle a western visa/passport when they would inevitably lo…

Well, reports are that the leaders of the ANA were corrupt and stealing the checks and the Taliban paid the soldiers to surrender so…

Re: Economic costs of war

#470

Post by chadcmulligan »

sudosysgen wrote: post #102
jaggederest wrote: post #6

Approximately $20,000 per person. $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years.

In another vein, it would have been cheaper to build a house, give a Ford Mustang, a tractor, and home appliances to every household in Afghanistan than to pay for the war there.

Indeed, imagine if instead of the western war train came, the western supply train came to all these countries. It would be a different world.
Post reply on HN