The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#2The unspoken assumption in this theory is that growth is good. What about peace and love? Isn't that good too? I wonder what Orwell would have thought about this.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#3The unspoken assumption in this theory is that growth is good. What about peace and love? Isn't that good too? I wonder what Orwell would have thought about this.
Not just of that theory. Of the whole of modern economics.
And without ever questioning "growth towards what" and "growth at what cost"...
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#4War is destruction. People who claim that war somehow creates wealth are profoundly idiotic, to say the least.
Reference: "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen", by Frédéric Bastiat, in English [1] and the original in French [2] (Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas)
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#5The title does not match the gist of the article.
It should be something like "Fear of war motivates politicians to do their job properly"
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#6If your economic model requires that we murder a bunch of people and blow a bunch of shit up in order to be "better off", I think it might be time to reconsider your economic model.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#7War is destruction. People who claim that war somehow creates wealth are profoundly idiotic, to say the least. Reference: "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen", by Frédéric Bastiat, in English [1] and the original in French [2] (Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas) [1] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html [2] http://bastiat.org/fr/cqovecqonvp.html
Nobody claims war creates wealth. People do claim that war creates wealth locally even as it destroys wealth globally.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#8War is destruction. People who claim that war somehow creates wealth are profoundly idiotic, to say the least. Reference: "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen", by Frédéric Bastiat, in English [1] and the original in French [2] (Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas) [1] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html [2] http://bastiat.org/fr/cqovecqonvp.html
I don't think that's a fair response to the article - it's arguing something more nuanced. Right in the 4th paragraph is this:
> This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#9We've managed as a society to turn all the potential warlords into football coaches and let them orchestrate their little armies on the football field instead of the battle field.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#10War is destruction. People who claim that war somehow creates wealth are profoundly idiotic, to say the least. Reference: "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen", by Frédéric Bastiat, in English [1] and the original in French [2] (Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas) [1] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html [2] http://bastiat.org/fr/cqovecqonvp.html
Nobody claims war creates wealth. People do claim that war creates wealth locally even as it destroys wealth globally.
"Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth" wrote John Maynard Keynes in "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money " (1936, chapter 10).