|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="khyber"]
| Quote: |
But that works on the assumption that it [the old thing] would have to have been fixed had the new thing not been broken, doesn't it?
If there was no intention of injecting 500B in social programs, how can it be said that the money was lost when the money wasn't there to begin with? |
The money was there, it was either 1) taxed or 2) created via creating debt. There is a finite amount of wealth in an economy at time "x". You can increase it by taking wealth from the future via debt.
War removes money from the private (productive) sphere of the economy and is wasted destroying wealth abroad (or at home) by governmental types (non-productive sphere). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In war, the government taxes the people to build things that break stuff. Some say this is good for the economy. It isn't. You loose the value of the stuff that is broken (either here, or there) and the investment/spending that would have otherwise happened should the war have not take place. |
Let me remind you (and again point you in the right direction) that the windows being broke are IN IRAQ. So there is very little "loss of value" on the American side.
DD |
Why would you have to remind me of something I already pointed out. Eh? I said "either here (America) or there (Iraq)".
You have never pointed me in any direction, other than your continued inability to grasp the elementary basics of how a modern economy works. Got that?
The loss of value in America is so bloody simple that I cannot believe you missed it. No, actually, I can. Private citizens both spend and invest money. War causes governments to only spend. Tanks are not a productive investment, while a mutual fund is. The tank kills and destroys, the mutual fund invests in firms that create value. Are you starting to see where the loss in value may come from?
DD, stick to misquoting poets nobody has ever heard of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The loss of value in America is so bloody simple that I cannot believe you missed it. No, actually, I can. Private citizens both spend and invest money. War causes governments to only spend. Tanks are not a productive investment, while a mutual fund is. The tank kills and destroys, the mutual fund invests in firms that create value. Are you starting to see where the loss in value may come from? |
Then please tell me why the biggest growth industry since the Bush has taken office has been by leaps and bounds, the military sector. Why has ear mark spending gone out of control? Why is the greatest employer and thus contributor to economic wealth , GDP, the military sector? Please, illuminate me............
As I stated previously, military production is not a way for long term economic well being or most importantly, economic distribution of wealth. It can only be economically sustainable if like a junkie ever increasing the dose, there is an ability to create supply(ie . fan the flames of war, fear etc...). The US has been more than blessed recently in this dept but one day the piper will have to be paid.
Here is a good article I had archived on the subject. And a few snippets.
Things have only magnified since Bush took the helm and injected a pigs trough of spending on military items....
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu38ne/uu38ne07.htm
| Quote: |
In fact, the prospect of a 'technological fix' to the problem of the US decline can hardly be resisted by a country that on the development of modern industrial technology has built its international power. It also helps to avoid confronting the serious problems of economic and social adjustment that are emerging with the US economic and political decline, beginning with the fall in the standard of living of large sectors of American society and the need to rebuild a large part of the social |
Here's the neocons take on why the military is the economic engine of America...(but they omit, only for the top 10% fat cats)
| Quote: |
With production, profits have also risen. In 1984 the ten largest contractors of the Defense Department had an average rate of return after taxes of 35 per cent, almost three times the 12.8 per cent of the average of manufacturing industry (Rubin and Frisvold 1985: 7). The US General Accounting Office reported that 'defense contractors were 35 % more profitable than commercial manufacturers during 1970-79 and 120% more profitable during 1980-83' (quoted in Clayton 1987). The political power of military industry has increased in a parallel way. The political contributions of the twenty largest military suppliers doubled in the period between the two presidential elections, reaching $3.6 billion in 1984. As an example, Rockwell International in the same period multiplied its political contributions by four and its military contracts by eight (Rubin and Frisvold 1985: 7).
These results have been considered as evidence of the success of US policy by the apologists of the Reagan administration. David Losman, professor of economics at the National Defense University, argued that
if defense spending is more capital-intensive, this furthers America's retooling and reindustrialization. And if such spending initially goes to higher income, high saving groups - well, aren't we trying to stimulate savings? If such expenditures bid up scientists' and technicians' wages, won't this encourage entry into these highly productive, crucial fields? |
| Quote: |
| Ann Markusen argued that 'in the United States military spending acts as a de facto industrial policy, and... the poor performance of the economy results from the distortions brought about by this reliance on military-led investment and innovation' (Markusen 1986: 496). Documenting the shift toward military production by the large US corporations, Mike Davis noted that 'for the old "Fordist" industrial core of the American economy - that is for the complex of mass production industries and their suppliers now threatened by import competition - the Pentagon has been the chief instrument of restructuring' (Davis 1985: 55). In the same way, Jeff Faux stressed that in the US 'no person or institution is responsible for increasing the competitiveness of US industry. But we do have industrial policy. Its manager, by default, is the Pentagon, and its implicit goal is to concentrate America's technological future in weaponry' (Faux 1986: 196). |
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Then please tell me why the biggest growth industry since the Bush has taken office has been by leaps and bounds, the military sector. Why has ear mark spending gone out of control? Why is the greatest employer and thus contributor to economic wealth , GDP, the military sector? Please, illuminate me............
DD |
The growth in "defense" (offense) spending comes AT THE EXPENSE of proper economy growth and investment.
Government does not create wealth (in America, where the mop are private). It doesn't matter how much the government spends today. It is using DEBT to finance all their nonsense. That debt will be paid for with inflation (watch the dollar) in the future. That ISN'T growth!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
I will concede that domestically, war is only good for the economy IF the military goods produced are used, sold, exported, create new demand, kill, maim, terrify, obliterate, blow up, roll along etc.........
What that takes is leadership that knows how to promote instability in the world, leadership that creates markets for these goods through a "war", a leadership that creates a climate whereby there is a demand. So far , so good with the present American leadership. A blessing for the military corporate elite, Lockheed, Boeing et al. Imagine how Phillip Morris would be cheering if the president were a chain smoker!
DD |
That's just stupid. If foreign nations are buying your tanks, they're not making their economies grow and then they're not buying more and more and more of your tractors. A tank won't make the economy grow and they will only buy a fixed number of tanks from you. A tractor will make the economy grow and then they will be back later for two tractors.
A world at peace where every nation can maximize spending limited resources on things that add on going value to their economies and add efficiencies, allowing them to increase their imports, is good for America, Canada, etc.
People kill each other in war, they have lots and lots of babies to make new soldiers or make farm hands to replace the farm hands killed by war. These babies they can't afford and become a drain on the economy. A man who keeps having his babies die on him does not have his heart in farming. We got Africa. Sell them tractors, people grow rich, we open wal-marts and dangle consumer products in front of them. People don't have a 9th child or even a 3rd child because they want the Xbox. Over population is taken care of. Remember Korea. In the '70s the Korean slogan was "Two is too many!" (As in families should have 1 child to bring down the out of control birth rate in Korea. Well times have changed.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lastly, too, the greatest economic loss is all the young men who die at the very beginning of their productive lives. Tens of thousands of $ are spend bringing a kid up, only to have him die before he holds down a real full-time job.
And, the decreased economic potential that kids with no dad have (less opportunity, increased potential for criminality).
War is a total long term disaster for an economy. A totally irrational, immoral and unproductive use of present and future economic resources and talent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm glad then we all agree LONG TERM yes, WAR is a travesty or even just military expenditure / production. I never was against this arguement and corrected my initial phrasing.
The question now begs; why for the last 30 years has the U.S. govt followed a path of voluminous expenditure on the military and the spin off productions of said industry? I return to my point of "the junkie".
DD
PS. I very much agree on the waste of human life point. Not just American but of all potentialities.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
