It's a bummer that we now live in an economy that is so inured to government spending that the very idea that war improves the economy would even occur to people.
The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
31–40 of 46 posts
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#32The 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.
What about peace and love? Isn't that good too?
Sure, and wealthy societies tend to be much more peaceful.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The argument seems a bit too nuanced if there is such a thing. "The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth" "This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies" How can both of these things be true?
Fighting wars doesn't help the economy, but preparing for (potential) wars can. Not that I agree with this argument, but that is the thesis of the article.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#34One important point of the article is that war is good for innovation. In war, people unite around common goals, and are willing to sacrifice in a way that is impossible in peacetime.
One might attribute this to the willingness to abolish patents in wartime, like the American aeroplane industry was forced to do during the first world war.¹ Since the state is the one concerned with fighting the war, and the state is the only actor effectively able to abolish patents (since the state is the one granting them in the first place), it is not odd that war is the only thing which can effect this change.
It has been argued that patents, as a whole, is a retardant to innovation. These historical facts seems to bear this argument out.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#35It's a bummer that we now live in an economy that is so inured to government spending that the very idea that war improves the economy would even occur to people.
It's not a new idea.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#36Once again, WWII did not get us out of the depression, it was the changes in government spending and tax policy between 1946 to 1948. Roosevelt was a disaster just as much as Wilson and Hoover. Truman was overruled by Congress who cut spending and taxes when Truman wanted to keep it. Reconcile the war lovers with rationing that occurred.
What is the basis of this statement? The economists I've read say that the US gov't didn't do enough in the 1930s (I'm not sure how much Congress and how much Roosevelt are to blame), as they lacked the political will to spend as much as was needed.
Start by looking at the difference in handling of the 1920 and 1929 crashes (Hoover was involved in both, overruled as Secretary of Commerce and implementing his spending binge as President). Hoover's foolishness worked about as well as Bush 43's and Roosevelt's authoritarian policies kept us down. Government spending hasn't got us out of a depression and the excuse is always "we didn't spend enough".
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#37Sounds a bit like Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#38War 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
War has a long history of driving technological innovation, it's not pretty but it's true. The development of computers, the internet, airplanes, nuclear power, and space exploration were all greatly accelerated due to military funding and necessity.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#39War 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…
Well then we're doubly fucked in the recent conflicts, aren't we ? No way that these islamist wars in the middle east will bring even a tiny amount of innovation, just death, massacres and economic disruption (which will bring a lot more misery than even the massacres). I mean maybe Iran is capable of some innovation in the area, but I doubt it.
And this Iraq war is but the latest addition of the many conflicts islam nutcases are waging. Outside of Iraq, there's Nigeria, Mali, Western Sahara, Sudan, China, Phillipines, Russia (basically the entire border of where muslims live geographically, actually).
I get the impression that what's really happening is that the US is no longer policing the world, the legacy it got from WWII. The old empires are in the same situation, and we're returning to the historical norm before that. That historical norm was 1.5 millenia of islam versus everyone else war, with more victims than any other conflict in history. Constant civil wars at the edges of muslim territories and regular genocides inside of it. The entire world, from morocco to close to south africa to deep in China (almost up to Hong Kong).
I guess what they mean is that for example, up until they were bought out, the main driver of independant robotics was the DoD. I guess that's what they mean. But outside of the US, Japan, China and Britain I doubt militaries are all that innovative. Hell, I don't know if they are outside of the US, point.
Re: The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
#40I feel this article assumes that the major war will happen "somewhere else". The last major war caused complete destruction of the economies and infrastructures from Seine to Volga. Today, a major war pretty much means nuclear/biological/chemical warfare. What kind of growth is author thinking about after that?