Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

War and Economics

Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

22 Aug 2011, 10:27 am

There are two perspectives on economics which are conflicted regarding the benefits of war.

One perspective is the Keynsian perspective, which says war is beneficial for economic growth, and is thus can be a good thing.

The other perspective says that wars destroy. The economic boom comes from replacing all the things lost. Production in itself is not a good thing, it is what is produced that matters.

What motivates a society to produce great things? Is it war? Is it freedom?

War can be argued as a good thing, as long as it motivates a population to produce things of use to society after the war, such as the development of rockets (which has allowed us ultimately to produce sattelites which produce innumerable goods to society), or jets which have allowed us to travel far greater distances in far less time. The research during war has produced many synthetic materials, radar, computers, faster planes, rockets, medicines, more powerful and more efficient vehicles better manufacturing processes and much more.

If you have a catastrophic event which causes people to come together, to give them a sense of purpose, they may go on to rebuild their world, become productive and continue to build more than they would otherwise. There is something fundamental about human nature and how we respond to war, to catastrophic events that make us more productive in the end. Whether or not it's worth the cost is a subjective matter, whether all the technology developed during WWII was of greater benefit than the cost of millions of lives lost. I suppose that depends on a person's perception of progress and morality.

Perhaps the technological benefit does more good than the war destroyed (in the case of WWII) but in terms of other wars maybe not.

So should I destroy my own home to make myself more productive? Perhaps I will develop new methods of home building that are of use to society, that will ultimately make me a wealthy man. As absurd as that sounds perhaps it is true.



Last edited by wcoltd on 22 Aug 2011, 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

22 Aug 2011, 11:03 am

You started with one thing- and went off another tangent (both interesting questions).

When a kid breaks a window-does that hurt the economy?
Or help the economy?

On one hand it feeds inflation, but on the other it reduces unemployment.

My take is that it depends on what the whole economy is doing at the time.
If the economy is in a recession it helps because it reduces unemployment, but if the ecnomy is already at full tilt it hurts becuse the inflationary edge of the double edged sword cuts more deeply then.


War can be thought of as a government make-work project.
Which has long led me to wonder this- when bush launched his two wars in the middle east without thinking about paying for them- you would expect to hurt the economy. But not the WAY it hurt the economy. We SHOULD have rampant inflation. Instead we have rampant unemployment.

Bush spends money on wars (make work projects) when the economy is okay- and after several years we have unemployment.
The only conclusion is that the recession actually started some years earlier than when it became manifest but was masked by the deficit spending of the two wars. The economy was already a dead man walking - propped up artificially by the wars- years before it finnally keeled over in the last year of the bush administration.

On the other topics: you're merging different issues together.
In peacetime there is such a thing as planned obsolesence.
You dont have to have an enemy army blow up your house to increase consumer demand. You can have appliances that are designed to fall apart after a period of time.

You may not need a hot war to motivate society to do something extraorddinary. The Cold War helped motivate the landing on the Moon.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

22 Aug 2011, 11:21 am

Exactly what economic benefit does the Rwanda war, the Iraq- Iran war, the Soviet war in Afghan ... bring?

The WW1 and WW2 bankrupted the British Empire, the current Iraq and Afghan War is causing much of financial problem of the US.

The whole 'theory' is nothing but bias.



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

22 Aug 2011, 11:24 am

naturalplastic wrote:
You started with one thing- and went off another tangent (both interesting questions).

When a kid breaks a window-does that hurt the economy?
Or help the economy?

On one hand it feeds inflation, but on the other it reduces unemployment.

My take is that it depends on what the whole economy is doing at the time.
If the economy is in a recession it helps because it reduces unemployment, but if the ecnomy is already at full tilt it hurts becuse the inflationary edge of the double edged sword cuts more deeply then.


War can be thought of as a government make-work project.
Which has long led me to wonder this- when bush launched his two wars in the middle east without thinking about paying for them- you would expect to hurt the economy. But not the WAY it hurt the economy. We SHOULD have rampant inflation. Instead we have rampant unemployment.

Bush spends money on wars (make work projects) when the economy is okay- and after several years we have unemployment.
The only conclusion is that the recession actually started some years earlier than when it became manifest but was masked by the deficit spending of the two wars. The economy was already a dead man walking - propped up artificially by the wars- years before it finnally keeled over in the last year of the bush administration.

On the other topics: you're merging different issues together.
In peacetime there is such a thing as planned obsolesence.
You dont have to have an enemy army blow up your house to increase consumer demand. You can have appliances that are designed to fall apart after a period of time.

You may not need a hot war to motivate society to do something extraorddinary. The Cold War helped motivate the landing on the Moon.


Perhaps the reason why the Iraq war has not spurred production is because the population isn't motivated enough. Maybe we need to give the opposition weapons and scientists so that we can start a technology race, which will, hopefully produce things society can use after the war. We need a bigger war, a world war like Asia vs the Western World.

Of course this experiment could go horribly wrong, we could all be killed, but maybe it's worth it.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

22 Aug 2011, 11:37 am

wcoltd wrote:
Perhaps the reason why the Iraq war has not spurred production is because the population isn't motivated enough. Maybe we need to give the opposition weapons and scientists so that we can start a technology race, which will, hopefully produce things society can use after the war. We need a bigger war, a world war like Asia vs the Western World.

Of course this experiment could go horribly wrong, we could all be killed, but maybe it's worth it.


Given a few thousand nuclear warheads can destroy the entire humanity (throw in some chemical and biological weapons if you like), what technological race do we need?



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

22 Aug 2011, 11:54 am

01001011 wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
Perhaps the reason why the Iraq war has not spurred production is because the population isn't motivated enough. Maybe we need to give the opposition weapons and scientists so that we can start a technology race, which will, hopefully produce things society can use after the war. We need a bigger war, a world war like Asia vs the Western World.

Of course this experiment could go horribly wrong, we could all be killed, but maybe it's worth it.


Given a few thousand nuclear warheads can destroy the entire humanity (throw in some chemical and biological weapons if you like), what technological race do we need?


If we could somehow have a technological race without the threat of nuclear war. Perhaps we get leaders on both sides, and fill them in that this war is for productive improvement and urge them not to use nuclear devices. Or perhaps we develop some nuclear defense network which will destroy any nuclear warhead or something like that.



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

22 Aug 2011, 1:30 pm

01001011 wrote:
Exactly what economic benefit does the Rwanda war, the Iraq- Iran war, the Soviet war in Afghan ... bring?

The WW1 and WW2 bankrupted the British Empire, the current Iraq and Afghan War is causing much of financial problem of the US.

The whole 'theory' is nothing but bias.


I agree with you. It's subjective whether or not these supposed benefits actually were worth the cost of human lives, cost to various empires and whatnot. Or whether these things like computers, radar, submarines, manufacturing processes, rocketry are beneficial or whether in an alternate universe where there was no world war. Whether or not the rate of technological progression would have been better. We can suppose that without the war, we might be living better off than otherwise.

I am certainly open to the idea and agree with the possibility that war can bring nothing but destruction and negative consequences, the argument is that it can (in some cases) produce benefit. That when properly motivated (by war) mankind can increase the rate of technological progression faster than perhaps any other motivator.

The term technological progression is subjective, though I think most people have a similar sense of what that means.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Aug 2011, 3:47 pm

01001011 wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
Perhaps the reason why the Iraq war has not spurred production is because the population isn't motivated enough. Maybe we need to give the opposition weapons and scientists so that we can start a technology race, which will, hopefully produce things society can use after the war. We need a bigger war, a world war like Asia vs the Western World.

Of course this experiment could go horribly wrong, we could all be killed, but maybe it's worth it.


Given a few thousand nuclear warheads can destroy the entire humanity (throw in some chemical and biological weapons if you like), what technological race do we need?


We have not got enough Nukes to destroy humanity. We could destroy civilization though.

ruveyn



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

22 Aug 2011, 6:09 pm

wcoltd wrote:
01001011 wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
Perhaps the reason why the Iraq war has not spurred production is because the population isn't motivated enough. Maybe we need to give the opposition weapons and scientists so that we can start a technology race, which will, hopefully produce things society can use after the war. We need a bigger war, a world war like Asia vs the Western World.

Of course this experiment could go horribly wrong, we could all be killed, but maybe it's worth it.


Given a few thousand nuclear warheads can destroy the entire humanity (throw in some chemical and biological weapons if you like), what technological race do we need?


If we could somehow have a technological race without the threat of nuclear war. Perhaps we get leaders on both sides, and fill them in that this war is for productive improvement and urge them not to use nuclear devices. Or perhaps we develop some nuclear defense network which will destroy any nuclear warhead or something like that.


A moral equivalent of war (if we can have a war other then actual war, that we can get people to rally around the state, to get people to drop their individual pursuits, to drop their free associations.) has been, in the many forms that it takes on, going on for a very long time. The war on smoking and climate change are international ones. It is sold as affecting everyone, and require us to drop our free associations and our ideological labels so that we can all unite and move forward with pragmatic and constructive action. It's just another way for the state to claim authority over another aspect of public life, all in the name of the public good.

Perhaps a war to spur technological innovations under the umbrella of sustainability can be had by dealing with waste. We waste a lot in this country and around the world, from water waste, to food waste, to energy waste, etc. Then we can compete on the grounds of waste reduction, and after massive hundreds of billions of dollars in investments, we'd live better healthier less expensive lives.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

22 Aug 2011, 6:41 pm

is this the Parable of the broken window?
if so lost opportunity costs out weigh the benefits.
or is it the idea that we should band together in an common cause
in which case it smacks of fascism.

either way the only economy I care about is my own.
(and if I am feeling generous the unemployment rate)
economic "growth" does not get my motor running.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

22 Aug 2011, 8:00 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
01001011 wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
Perhaps the reason why the Iraq war has not spurred production is because the population isn't motivated enough. Maybe we need to give the opposition weapons and scientists so that we can start a technology race, which will, hopefully produce things society can use after the war. We need a bigger war, a world war like Asia vs the Western World.

Of course this experiment could go horribly wrong, we could all be killed, but maybe it's worth it.


Given a few thousand nuclear warheads can destroy the entire humanity (throw in some chemical and biological weapons if you like), what technological race do we need?


If we could somehow have a technological race without the threat of nuclear war. Perhaps we get leaders on both sides, and fill them in that this war is for productive improvement and urge them not to use nuclear devices. Or perhaps we develop some nuclear defense network which will destroy any nuclear warhead or something like that.


A moral equivalent of war (if we can have a war other then actual war, that we can get people to rally around the state, to get people to drop their individual pursuits, to drop their free associations.) has been, in the many forms that it takes on, going on for a very long time. The war on smoking and climate change are international ones. It is sold as affecting everyone, and require us to drop our free associations and our ideological labels so that we can all unite and move forward with pragmatic and constructive action. It's just another way for the state to claim authority over another aspect of public life, all in the name of the public good.

Perhaps a war to spur technological innovations under the umbrella of sustainability can be had by dealing with waste. We waste a lot in this country and around the world, from water waste, to food waste, to energy waste, etc. Then we can compete on the grounds of waste reduction, and after massive hundreds of billions of dollars in investments, we'd live better healthier less expensive lives.


Isn't it because by introducing all sorts of "wars" we've diluted the motive value that existed?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Aug 2011, 8:02 pm

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon

ruveyn



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

22 Aug 2011, 8:09 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
is this the Parable of the broken window?
if so lost opportunity costs out weigh the benefits.
or is it the idea that we should band together in an common cause
in which case it smacks of fascism.

either way the only economy I care about is my own.
(and if I am feeling generous the unemployment rate)
economic "growth" does not get my motor running.


What about defending the world from an alien invasion? Does that get you moving? Would you be more productive if you were working to combat an immenent threat of doom?

Suppose we were to stage an alien invasion, wouldn't people work harder to combat this threat? Perhaps we would devise all sorts of countermeasures to "alien" technology that would have use outside of war. There would be tremendous wastes of human resources, yes, but most of human resources are dormant, a dormancy that only the fear of immenent doom can awaken.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

22 Aug 2011, 8:14 pm

wcoltd wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
is this the Parable of the broken window?
if so lost opportunity costs out weigh the benefits.
or is it the idea that we should band together in an common cause
in which case it smacks of fascism.

either way the only economy I care about is my own.
(and if I am feeling generous the unemployment rate)
economic "growth" does not get my motor running.


What about defending the world from an alien invasion? Does that get you moving? Would you be more productive if you were working to combat an immenent threat of doom?

Suppose we were to stage an alien invasion, wouldn't people work harder to combat this threat? Perhaps we would devise all sorts of countermeasures to "alien" technology that would have use outside of war. There would be tremendous wastes of human resources, yes, but most of human resources are dormant, a dormancy that only the fear of immenent doom can awaken.


economic/technological growth for their own sake is a perverse misuse of human striving.
I would prefer a world worth living in to one that is buzzing with "purpose".
If I had my druthers we would all buy a little less work a little less and love a little more.
and by love I mean have sex. :)


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

22 Aug 2011, 8:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon

ruveyn


I never saw that episode, it seems awesome.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Aug 2011, 8:32 pm

wcoltd wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon

ruveyn


I never saw that episode, it seems awesome.


Next to the Tribbles, I thought it was the best of the Old Star Trek Episodes.

Especially Kirk's soliloquy.

"Are we murderers? Yes we are. But TODAY we will not kill"

That one got to me.

ruveyn