Quantcast

Is War GOOD for the Economy or BAD for the Economy??!!

BlueRepublican 2012/06/18 15:54:19
Good for the economy
Bad for the economy
Unsure
You!
Add Photos & Videos

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??!!


bushwar2nyse
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • CrazyDeen0 2012/06/18 16:18:39
    Bad for the economy
    CrazyDeen0
    +5
    It 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.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Keegan The Fabulous 2012/07/06 03:20:13
    Unsure
    Keegan The Fabulous
    Yes and no. Generally, from looking back at WW2 and the recent war in the Middle East, I've noticed that a war's effect on the economy depends on how the economy is faring right before the war begins.

    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.
  • michael... Keegan ... 2013/04/28 23:10:02 (edited)
    michael.redbourn
    +3
    How about Israel?

    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!
  • Lee 2012/06/23 16:47:48
    Unsure
    Lee
    It depends on the specific situation.

    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.
  • PvK 2012/06/22 20:40:15
    Bad for the economy
    PvK
    It depends on how you define "good" and "economy". Manufacturers of weapons, oil, supplies, mercenaries, etc., are obviously given lots of business, which they would tend to say was good for them. People concerned about national debt would tend to say it was bad. People who care about the value of their currency vs. foreign currency would tend to say it was bad. People who get their businesses destroyed either by violence or by being drafted or conscripted or by being not allowed to do business with certain nations or whatever other chaotic effects would tend to say it was bad for them. Etc. Overall, I would say it is a horrible and bad thing economically and in almost every other way, except when necessary (e.g. the overthrow of Hitler and the Nazis).
  • DefendnProtect 2012/06/21 16:12:18
    Bad for the economy
    DefendnProtect
    War is extremely costly. The last decade of US wars will have the middle class extorted via higher taxes or the massive debts will lead the US to go completely bankrupt.

    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.

  • Shigurui 2012/06/20 01:44:42
    Unsure
    Shigurui
    +1
    "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination enda...



    >>>>
    "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
    -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.
    (more)
  • Defendn... Shigurui 2012/06/21 16:15:13
    DefendnProtect
    +1
    The MIC has to be paid for by taxpayers. Imagine giving $4 Trillion back to middle class America for the last decade of American wars.
  • morning40oz~mad as hell 2012/06/19 21:03:37
    Bad for the economy
    morning40oz~mad as hell
    +2
    While there are a few who profit greatly from the proceeds of war, the public pays dearly the debt that is incurred.


    United States debt due to wars

    United States debt due to iraq war
  • YouSirName 2012/06/19 12:54:10
    Unsure
    YouSirName
    +2
    The answer is "it depends."

    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.
  • D D 2012/06/19 08:30:19
    Unsure
    D D
    +1
    Supposedly good. In WWI and WWII it was good.

    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.
  • aneed2know 2012/06/19 04:40:06
    Unsure
    aneed2know
    +1
    I guess it depends on who is getting the big fat contracts and who is fighting them. Or rather we actually budget for wars. For people like Prince owner of Black water and Wakenhut its a good thing, but for the rest of us its a bad thing.
  • rocat 2012/06/19 03:52:19
    Good for the economy
    rocat
    +2
    i'll clarify-

    good for the economy of a select few-
  • RageFury rocat 2012/06/19 05:35:48
    RageFury
    +1
    Should have gave it more thought, as always, good point.
  • FeedFwd ~POTL 2012/06/19 03:50:39
    Bad for the economy
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    +3
    Certainly in the long term. Read Frederic Bastiat's fallacy of the broken window and then you will be better prepared to discuss.

    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.
  • Gregaj7 2012/06/19 03:30:12
    Bad for the economy
    Gregaj7
    +3
    Good for the International Bankers; bad for the mass-populous.
  • KingdomNow 2012/06/19 00:55:15
    Bad for the economy
    KingdomNow
    +1
    ...unless we invade countries to exploit their resources, like in the old days.
  • beach bum 2012/06/19 00:47:31
    Unsure
    beach bum
    +1
    depends who is profiting from it
  • Uranos7 2012/06/19 00:01:04
    Unsure
    Uranos7
    +3
    The way we waged war in WWI and WWII it was good for the economy in that it created jobs and reduced the population. The way we wage it now it does neither of those things and we outsource the good part as well creating jobs for others and not ourselves and thus drain our economy more.
  • Warren ... Uranos7 2012/06/19 02:28:31
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    Actually, one of the benefits of defense work is that it is often export controlled by the State Department and can't be outsourced to foreign countries.
  • Uranos7 Warren ... 2012/06/19 08:02:34
    Uranos7
    +1
    Not true unfortunately.
    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.
  • Warren ... Uranos7 2012/06/19 13:56:20
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    True but critical technologies are controlled by either making the specifications classified or by putting export controls on technologies. When this is done, they cannot be outsourced. The downside, from an economic point of view is that classified and export controlled technologies cannot be exported either.
  • Uranos7 Warren ... 2012/06/20 03:46:28
    Uranos7
    That is a very small part of the war manufacturing, not enough to make any real difference anymore.
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/18 23:49:33
    Unsure
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    Like too many other things, too many sweetheart contracts.

    Also, wars should not be fought without justification, and should not drag on too long.
  • Wake The Sheeple 2012/06/18 23:15:35
    Bad for the economy
    Wake The Sheeple
    +1
    It's always bad for liberty, secondly it is economically good for a few while robbing the rest through new taxes levied to cover the costs, not to mention robbing pawns that fight the wars of their future and in many cases their lives.
  • Devonly 2012/06/18 22:20:46
    Good for the economy
    Devonly
    +1
    When you take a step back and look at the big picture, how can you say it isn't good for the economy? I'm not saying in the least bit that 'war' in itself is a good thing, but economically it does give people work.
  • krayzrick 2012/06/18 22:14:48
    Bad for the economy
    krayzrick
    +1
    Unless of course you take home the 'booty'...
  • Beccy 2012/06/18 22:07:34
    Bad for the economy
    Beccy
    +4
    What really hurts is the no bid contracts to leaders friends and the pallots of moey that come up missing.
  • Cyan9 2012/06/18 21:13:38 (edited)
    Bad for the economy
    Cyan9
    +1
    That doesn't meant that it's not extraordinarily lucrative though. Lot's of things that a bad for the economy are still very profitable but they'll only benefit a small section of the populace at the expense of the general public. Economics is inherently a question about public welfare and not a small group or one individual.
  • Ben 2012/06/18 20:52:18
    Unsure
    Ben
    War is good for America's savings account, but bad for it's checking account. By the way, the American public never knows what is in its savings account. All we hear about is the negative balance that is our checking. America isn't in the hole. America is the richest nation on the planet because we get paid trillions to police other nations. Don't believe for a second that we are in a recession. You might be in a recession, but the American government is not.
  • Robbb 2012/06/18 20:33:54
    Bad for the economy
    Robbb
    +3
    Modern war is wasteful and economically unsustainable. so if you want to continue to hav wars it should be reduced to a situation where it is done only with hand to hand combat. No weapons. any other way uses up resources that can be put to better use in the future. Have a look at the results of the work done by the US military machine and judge from its results.
  • Lester 2012/06/18 19:13:18
    Unsure
    Lester
    +1
    It really depends on the war. There is little question that the increased economic activity of WWII was what finally pulled the US out of the depression. That was due to the entire US economy revving up for war production.

    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.
  • dvd 2012/06/18 17:41:56
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/18 17:38:43
    Unsure
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +3
    The way we handle war, it's bad. It sucks out money and manpower the longer it goes on.

    The Romans turned war into a business--the business of making profit from loot and booty. I wouldn't recommend that for our society.
  • Bilingual required sucks 2012/06/18 17:37:35
    Bad for the economy
    Bilingual required sucks
    +3
    You really need to ask that question? Where were you for the last 10 years?
  • Næthan Æterna 2012/06/18 17:17:01
    Bad for the economy
    Næthan Æterna
    +2
    Although it is good for the Military-Industrial-Complex. We sell weapons to other Countries so that later on down the road we can invade them. There is big money in war and also in "security". Follow the money to find the motive.
  • SoD 2012/06/18 16:46:00
    Bad for the economy
    SoD
    War in and of itself is bad for the economy. However, following WWII the Untied States was able to monopolize industry because the rest of the world was a smoldering pile of rubble. That's why the depression ended.
  • Contarded Guru Chickenhawk 2012/06/18 16:42:34
  • luvguins 2012/06/18 16:39:58
    Bad for the economy
    luvguins
    +2
    While WW II helped to revive the economy because everyone sacrificed, now Iraq and Afghanistan have further eroded the present economy. To wage more wars in the near future could be devastating to the hole we are already in.
  • Zak Smith 2012/06/18 16:37:07
    Unsure
    Zak Smith
    +2
    Depends on which sector of the economy you are talking about. It is very good for the mercenaries, weapons manufacturers and contractors.
  • Max 2012/06/18 16:29:49
    Good for the economy
    Max
    +1
    If you ever look at the Department of Defense contracts for private businesses, you'll see they're handing out contracts left and right, with all the money we have to pay for it. For this reason alone, we will always be at war from now on.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/21 08:15:41

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals