Is War GOOD for the Economy or BAD for the Economy??!!
BlueRepublican
2012/06/18 15:54:19
|
|
|||||
|
14 votes
|
|
20% | ||
|
36 votes
|
|
51% | ||
|
21 votes
|
|
30% | ||
What are the pros and cons? Is war profitable for a country or is it a last resort? I wanna know what you think. Vote right now and tell me why. Leave a comment, share with everyone you know, and RAVE!!
-BR
Is War GOOD for the Economy or BAD for the Economy??!!
Top Opinion
-
CrazyDeen0 2012/06/18 16:18:39Bad for the economy
+5It is bad because it costs way more than we make. Therefore, our government hides the cost of the war through inflation (Printing Money out of thin air) This causes the price of commodities to rise like food, gasoline, etc..but then blame it on the economy or supply and demand., its BS and if Americans would wake up and realize the underlinings of our failed monetary policy things would be a whole lot better really fast. If they made us pay for the war, they would have to raise taxes and therefore the support for their unending wars would come to an abrupt end.
When a war begins during tough times, like WW2 and the Great Depression, the war helps "revitalize" the economy by putting people back to work farming to produce crops to feed the soldiers, working in factories producing war machines and weapons for the military, etc., and economic activity begins increasing as people and corporations begin pitching in however they can to help in the war effort.
However, when a war begins during a boom period, like the war in the Middle East, the war sucks funds out of the economy and into the war zone(s), as the govt. raises taxes and prices to cover the cost of the war machines, the labor, the supplies, etc.
So the answer, in short, has to do with economic stimulation and stability. In a depression, the stimulation caused by war helps the economic tide pool start back up; but in any other time, the stimulation can actually cause the pool to come to a near stand-still.
At war for 65 years, and it has one of the best economies in the world.
And it has nothing to do with American aid, over 80% of which must be spent in the US
And just look at the innovations that have come out of Israel because of it's wars!
During WWII, massive government spending put citizens back to work, and since the US was unharmed while the manufacturing infrastructure of the rest of the world was in a shambles after the war, the US was able to convert from wartime production and sell to the rest of the world.
Because war entails spending and employment, it can stimulate the economy in the short term.
But there are plenty of more constructive means to stimulate the economy.
We definitely DON NOT to need to get into unnecessary wars.
If we turned our energies to building infrastructure, we could both employ people in the near term, while simultaneously setting this nation up for future commercial endeavors.
Every US family has $680,000 debt now. About 46 million Americans on foodstamps.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
An overhaul of the monetary system is needed. Debts need to be liquidated. Instead establishment politicians will lead by effecting austerity in debasing the currency, evaporating purchasing power of local communities, killing more business and jobs.
>>>>
-Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower
Farewell Address
Its way more complex now than the good/bad thing. The MICs benefit is immense, for those in the "defense" industry. Their business cannot survive without conflict. We have let the warning from Eisenhower go, without acting. With the defense industry lobbying and donation effort, we have pretty much maintained a state of constant conflict since WWII>KOREA>VIETNAM>RUSSIA>NIC... There is smaller conflicts peppered throughout the timeline as well. Were in conflict because they make money and they pay the bigger bribes.
If you have an economy that has high unemployment and low inflation (or deflation as in the Great Depression), a massive government stimulus like spending in WWII into an economy that relied on manual labor produced a huge boon to the economy.
On the other hand, if you have an economy that has average unemployment and some inflation, and if you already have a mostly automated weapons manufacturing industry, government spending on war produces minimal jobs, increases deficits and sucks money out of the economy that goes to an already wealthy few. This harms the economy.
I know now days it makes some people rich. Sad thing is that there are actual true threats and defense needed, but no one believes it. We have been lied to (and I am not just talking Bush) that people no longer know when it is real and we really need to do something. Now everyone cries for no war and we could find ourselves in a bad way.
good for the economy of a select few-
There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.
That said, a war should not be judged on its impact on the economy.
The U.S. Air Force sparked controversy with its February decision to award a $35 billion contract, one of the Pentagon’s largest, to French company European Aeronautic Defence & Space (commonly known as EADS) and American partner Northrop-Grumman (NOC). The move raised the issue of whether the military should be allowed to accept bids from foreign companies for defense contracts.
http://www.businessweek.com/d...
In addition to that many parts used in our military equipment are made in China and other countries. The Hum-V is only 60% American made and the M1 Abrams only 70%.
The reconstruction contracts in these countries are also largely going to other countries that can do it cheaper, like China who is also building bridges in the USA now.
Also, wars should not be fought without justification, and should not drag on too long.
On the other hand, the recent wars in SW Asia appear to have just been a drag on the economy. The reason isn't that hard to figure out. Much of recent US war spending has gone to overseas contractors (not US firms), and much of what still involves US businesses (such as ammunition production) is highly automated and produces goods that are designed to be destroyed so they have no economic multiplier effect. That is a comparatively poor use of economic resources. While a very tiny fraction of US companies may have benefited from the wars, for the vast majority of country the only effect has been increased government deficits which has contributed to economic stagnation.
The Romans turned war into a business--the business of making profit from loot and booty. I wouldn't recommend that for our society.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/...