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.
Answer these questions.
Where does said wealth come from?
Do publicly funded projects actually reduce federal outlays, or do they simply change the agency issuing the check?
Do you believe there is no bureaucratic overhead involved in such projects?
Money and financial assets, on the other hand, are not real wealth. They are debt, issued against the economy.
When the government circulates money, economic activity increases and more wealth is created. Money simply changes hands, but real GDP and wealth increase. Don't confuse money with wealth. Wealth is tangible assets, not banknotes or debts.
That economic fact doesn't coincide with stimulus/jobs bill appropriations. I'll venture a guess that most people didn't want to fund the bailing out of big banks and GM, or any of the other examples of Fascist economic chicanery over the past several years.
What you describe is known as subsistence and it is not at all synonymous with wealth in any form.
If you think you can only provide for yourself a wealth of the things you need, you are speaking of subsistence... not wealth.
PS
What I speak of is not an idea nor an academic hypothesis. Those shoes fit you better. If you think otherwise, use the very questions I ask at the beginning of this comment to invalidate my premise and I will concede.
Keep me updated please. I would hate to be guilty of forwarding an invalid premise and not even know it. I would also hate for you to cling to your invalid premise just because it's yours. However, your premise is hardly unique or new. It originated in WPA and NRA propaganda in the early 20th century.
http://bluedelliquanti.blogsp...
http://www.theretrovert.com/w...
http://archive.org/details/Na...
See my comment above and historical data for what actually occurred.
Well done ;)
The only union involved in your education strategy is your family. As a father and husband myself, I know for a fact they will hold you accountable ;)
Following WWII the entire industrialized world aside from the United States was a smouldering pile of rubble. This allowed the United States to establish a natural monopoly, which is what brought us out of the great depression.
My explanation of how we were brought out of the great depression is based on macroeconomics, whereas Daniel's premise disregards the rest of the world following WWII.
See below.
Following WWII the entire industrialized world aside from the United States was a smouldering pile of rubble. This allowed the United States to establish a natural monopoly, which is what brought us out of the great depression.
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional terr...
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlight...
probably true unless you are the ones manufacturing and selling arms, especially to both sides.