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

War Is a Racket (1933)

man.fas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 235 posts

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#121

Post by lifeplusplus »

anm89 wrote: post #109
lifeplusplus wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

money laundering at bigger scale... tax -> war -> defense budget -> military complex manufacturers

The idea of a government, especially the US, laundering money doesn't really make any sense. Generally, the point of laundering money is to pay taxes on it so it can enter the financial system. Governments (and especially the US who has the most control of international monetary pipelines like SWIFT) can freely do what they want with their money generally, at least within their own countries. Their money is going to…

it does, the point is take tax revenue and transfer it to rich buddies, now if it requires starting wars and spending trillions, so be it as long as your buddies end up getting few trillions from it

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#122

Post by eru »

roenxi wrote: post #120
spaetzleesser wrote: post #51

I started paying attention to this when I lived close to DC around 2002. Bush was cutting the top tax brackets while ramping up for the Iraq invasion, the defense contractors made record profits (I remember one CEO making around 30 million) and the DC metro was plastered with ads touting the patriotism of the defense contractors. I thought "these guys are making record money, are getting their taxes reduced, try to l…

> Since then I honestly think there should be no profit in making weapons while a war is going. It is an interesting thought but ... if the government tells the industrial chain "you aren't getting paid for this" then there is a pretty high chance the war will be lost. Being optimistic, maybe it could work for one war. Then the next war people ask "where are our weapons?" and the answer is "there are none". There is…

Don't they have elections for that purpose?

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#123

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

anm89 wrote: post #109
lifeplusplus wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

money laundering at bigger scale... tax -> war -> defense budget -> military complex manufacturers

The idea of a government, especially the US, laundering money doesn't really make any sense. Generally, the point of laundering money is to pay taxes on it so it can enter the financial system. Governments (and especially the US who has the most control of international monetary pipelines like SWIFT) can freely do what they want with their money generally, at least within their own countries. Their money is going to…

Laundering as a term might not be a good fit, but the parent comment's main claim that war is a vehicle for moving public money into private pockets is absolutely correct

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#124

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

hilbert42 wrote: post #98

The tragedy is that poor unfortunate grunts only get to know it's a racket after it's too late - when half of them are already dead. Unfortunately, it seems to be a chararistic of the human condition that learning about war is a slow prossess and that the horrors of experiencing it cannot passed down from one generation to the next. Experience gathered over millennia has demonstrated that it's essentially impossible…

It doesn't help that each new generation gets a barrage of propaganda pushed onto them equating military service with heroics, honour, patriotism, and so forth. We could teach the next generation that war is bad, if we wanted to, but since the decision to go to war is made by the same government that sets the educational curriculum, well, odds are slim.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#125

Post by VictorPath »

mrjangles wrote: post #77
dav_Oz wrote: post #58

Beforehand [0] the author of this text, Butler, the most respected general in the US at that time was offered to lead a coup d'etat to overthrow FDR and then to become effectively a dictator. [0] https://bigthink.com/the-present/fdr-coup/

>Remembering when bankers tried to overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictator Ironic considering that FDR's economic reforms were openly modeled on fascist Italy, and FDR was on good terms with Mussolini. He was also in the process of following Mussolini's lead and attempting to overthrow the American institutions that were in his way. He had already gone out of his way to install a KKK member on the Supreme Court,…

> economic reforms were openly modeled on fascist Italy

Or on things he had done in New York State as governor.

> Supreme Court if they wouldn't accept his unconstitutional changes

His changes, and the Congress's changes, which the American people had overwhelmingly supported in his 1936 reelection where he won by overwhelming margins which almost decimated GOP representation in DC.

Also with Roberts switch in time that saved nine, the Supreme Court accepted many of the reforms.

FDR had reduced judge pensions, which kept the GOP judges on the bench longer and gave them an axe to grind. He did not have to act like Mussolini he could have just broke his campaign promise about judge pensions and have seen a lot of retirements by 1936.

The US never came anywhere near the conditions that gave rise to fascism in Italy and Germany.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#126

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

aplummer wrote: post #94
reedjosh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a trivial distinction. Either way you had to go back that far to find another president that didn't start a new war. It would be remarkable if it was 20 years.

You only have to go back to Obama to find a president that didn’t “start a war”. As Obama only interceded in Libya and other ongoing conflicts.

For the people who are getting shot and bombed, the distinction between "war", "operations" and "conflicts" are meaningless. It's semantics used to do an end-run around the fact that Congress needs to approve a declaration of war, but it doesn't change the nature of the activity.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#127

Post by zhoujianfu »

derac wrote: post #70
GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalists tend to dislike Democracy. In a Democracy, groups of people tax the Capitalists to pay for all sorts of frivolities like Health Care, Elder Care, poor folk care, and crazy useless stuff like Libraries, parks (aka future mining locations), policing, and community-sponsored housing. It's so much easier for the Capitalists if there is a fascist in charge, because then such nonsense as just mentioned is tampe…

Hi, I'm a Social Democrat. I want all of those things and a capitalist system. I don't think markets solve every problem, however. For example, I think universal healthcare is a good idea.

I think universal basic income is the best compromise between capitalism and “socialism”.

What if there were only private health care, parks, libraries, school, elder care… but everybody was “rich” (enough to easily afford them all).

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#128

Post by EricDeb »

pirate787 wrote: post #61
the-dude wrote: post #28

We can clearly hear the drums beating from across the Atlantic. A new adventure was already expected with the change of administration.

It's worth noting Trump was the first US President to not start a war in half a century.

I'll give him credit for that. I didn't really like getting out of the nuclear deal with Iran however

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#129

Post by aplummer »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #126
aplummer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only have to go back to Obama to find a president that didn’t “start a war”. As Obama only interceded in Libya and other ongoing conflicts.

For the people who are getting shot and bombed, the distinction between "war", "operations" and "conflicts" are meaningless. It's semantics used to do an end-run around the fact that Congress needs to approve a declaration of war, but it doesn't change the nature of the activity.

I didn’t make a distinction between those. But there is a big difference between starting and interceding in any of those. American didn’t “start” ww2 for example, but did “start” the war in Iraq.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#130

Post by derac »

zhoujianfu wrote: post #127
derac wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm a Social Democrat. I want all of those things and a capitalist system. I don't think markets solve every problem, however. For example, I think universal healthcare is a good idea.

I think universal basic income is the best compromise between capitalism and “socialism”. What if there were only private health care, parks, libraries, school, elder care… but everybody was “rich” (enough to easily afford them all).

I think UBI is the best compromise as well for solving worker's rights issues and poverty. It doesn't have to exclude all other governmental programs though.

I don't think fully private healthcare works in practice. It disincentivizes cures and proactive treatment. It's also difficult or impossible to ensure you're getting a good price for emergency treatment. Empirically, public healthcare is cheaper and has better outcomes. I'm not wholly against some private higher-end care for those that want to pay, though.

Privatizing all land/parks sounds disasterous. There are some things we pay for that we don't expect to profit from monetarily. Our national and state parks, blm land, and libraries fit that bill.

Schools, yeah maybe. I'd push for a voucher system while still making school a requirement.

Social security, food stamps, etc. could all be rolled into direct cash payment. People having cash just doesn't solve the issues with having market incentives in places where it is detrimental, imo.

Post reply on HN