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

361–370 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#361

Post by dillondoyle »

mc32 wrote: post #243
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…

Ever since we reneged on the decision Kennedy made to pull out of VietNam by Johnson, we've thought continually we were dealing with another defeated Japan or defeated Germany --the enemy population would just comply to our wishes, so we kept on thinking we could "turn them into replicas of American government" This thinking has undermined our actions in every major war since then, with the exception of GWI. Gulf War…

Congress basically in practice abdicated that power with an incredibly broad AUMF 'war on terrorism .' I think there is even one from like cold war on the books.

I know the house voted to end them but the Senate didn't act?

Re: Economic costs of war

#362

Post by tick_tock_tick »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #320
new_realist wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. spends $4T a year on health care (of which $171.8B is spent on research), vs. $320B a year here.

4T? No, more like 1T Here is 2019: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324 Medicare + Medicaid = 1T.

This is federal only. Still don't think it will get up to 4 trillion but linking to federal only is a bit misleading.

Re: Economic costs of war

#363

Post by miked85 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #351
miked85 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of Americans wanted out of Afghanistan. That isn't the issue. The issue is with the way it was done.

It couldn't have happened any other way. That's why the last two presidents promised it and failed to deliver.

They could have got US civilians and allies out first - there is no reason it had to happen this way.

Re: Economic costs of war

#364

Post by dillondoyle »

Mizza wrote: post #217
api wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or not? Maybe it’s China’s turn to burn trillions in Afghanistan.

I see this a lot but don't understand why. China has every motivation to prop up the Taliban. A sister comment already noted the mineral resources, but don't forget the main function of Afghanistan as a nation: production of heroin. Narcopolitics are so fantastically more significant than ever gets any attention from "surface" media, but this is the name of the game. Chinese fentanyl has taken over the global opiate…

100% on board. but one scenario: if Taliban supported uprising in Xinjiang. That was one of the things talked about at their recent summit. CCP loves to say don't mess with our internal 'affairs'

Re: Economic costs of war

#365

Post by octodog »

lmilcin wrote: post #65
antattack wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong US companies got the money, like BlackRock that owns 9trillion dollars in US assets, invests in weapons, including cluster munitions [2] and are untouchable[1]: [1] https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-fea...

Well, 34th Rule of Acquisition clearly states, "War is good for business". EDIT: I don't like when the parent removes his entire comment and replaces it with something else, so now your comment seems stupid and off topic. I leave mine because I like DS9

True enough. But don't forget the 35th Rule of Acquisition - "Peace is good for business".

Re: Economic costs of war

#366

Post by mc32 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #340
mc32 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since we reneged on the decision Kennedy made to pull out of VietNam by Johnson, we've thought continually we were dealing with another defeated Japan or defeated Germany --the enemy population would just comply to our wishes, so we kept on thinking we could "turn them into replicas of American government" This thinking has undermined our actions in every major war since then, with the exception of GWI. Gulf War…

> 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 of "nation-building". Not everyone wants democracy right now. It may come later.

>Both of the long wars started under Bush had Congressional authorization.

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.

Re: Economic costs of war

#367

Post by nightski »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #298
nightski wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never been a matter of money. We've seen the government can pass multi trillion dollar bills on demand and increase the budget at will. That's what is lacking, the political power/will to pass such legislation. It's unfortunate but it has nothing to do with this war or its cost.

It's sometimes handy to define tradeoffs as a "question of money" and understand through this that things have costs. Fighter jets don't manufacture themselves. The metal to make guns is smelted in blast furnaces built and maintained by men and materials that someone paid for, using fuel someone paid for, and those people who were paid didn't do it for the decimal(2) value of the dollars involved, they did it for the…

I feel like most of the resources needed for healthcare already exist as part of the current system. It's simply a matter of policy and how it's paid for. But I am not an expert and could be missing a key point.

Re: Economic costs of war

#368

Post by sgregnt »

anyfoo wrote: post #265
sgregnt wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a nice saying... but may I push back? Maybe it's like saying instead of insisting to keep a positive balance, take a debt and go study in a callege. Then profit for the rest of your life?

Not even going into the issue that we don't have time to "go to college" before this needs to be fixed, what actually is the "college" in your analogy? And the balance is already negative.

Restrictions on pollution would hinder economic development, which in turn would hinder scientific progress, so we will not invent new effective methods to fight pollution. "Debt" is unrestrained economic development, "college" is the research and added economic capacity that comes out of it. And profit are the new methods for removing pollution.

But I don't necessarily believe in it. The point here is that, IMHO, for every, motto-like, populist data-less claim why we should fight pollution, one can easily come up with equivalently populist data less claim why we should not bother with clime change. In isolation from supporting data these two claims are equally unsubstantiated. If there is some concrete data to share please do so, otherwise it's an echo chamber where people would just upvote what they agree with and downvote what they disagree, without any concern for the actual facts brought out in the claim, it's not a argument taking place in the comments it just people preferences showing up in their votings.

Re: Economic costs of war

#370

Post by dillondoyle »

bb88 wrote: post #165
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #5

Deaths 9/11 2,996 Deaths Covid-19 USA 621,000 207x Lack of understanding of large numbers is a flaw in the human mind we have to figure out how to fix.

Things like 9/11 were easily played over and over again, and generated support for the afghan war in the first place. In NZ when the terrorists broadcasted the Christchurch mosque shootings on facebook, NZ took action swiftly -- banning most semiautomatic weapons. When BLM protests showed cops shooting, tasing, and running over people with patrol cars -- those images were more compelling than any story that could hav…

I completely agree with that. because of HIPAA there hasn't been nearly enough media. There is more now I think a concerted effort to get testimonials of people in hospital their family dead saying they wish they got the vaccine. But it's too late.

I think if we had Vietnam style video of death from the start we wouldn't have as large of a % living in alternate realities.

Post reply on HN