Who Profits from War?

Actually, it does. It stuns me how straightforward you can be when you actually try.

However, my point remains the same. You're quite right in stating than an economic theory cannot be expected to cover every scenario, thus it need not ALWAYS work when all of life's intangibles are thrown into the mix. The problem with Keynesianism is that fluctuating products are not some minor detail. They are, arguably, the core of our economy, and unarguably an important part of it. To say Keynesianism works if you assume a static produce line is like saying the weather's nice so long as you don't get any wind.

This brings us back to my original point: demand-side policies may, indeed, have some practical use. But if they do, it's only in the very short-term, for the reasons stated above. Long-term, they don't pass the basic logic test. Supply-side economics, on the other hand, identifies the difficult part of economic growth (the creation and modification of products) and focuses on making that as easy as is reasonably possible, and therefore is a vastly superior economic theory in the long run.

Oh, and in case anyone's interested...two quotes from Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi (I have the original press release, if anyone cares to verify this):

Below you'll find a chart illustrating not only that Bush has been increasing this department's budget since he took office, but that he's been doing so at a much faster rate than the Clinton administration did, as well. By no stretch of the imagination is Dubya doing anything other than standing behind our Veterans.

Attachments

 

A chart.... *imagines Yoda in a business suit with pointer, pointing at a typical looking bar graph*

I won't comment on which is the "superior economic theory". However, demand-side economics is a proven reality--for me, an experiential reality. In the context of life's variables, it may not operate with strict mathematical precision, but it operates nevertheless and cannot be ignored. To base your entire economic policy on the hope or expectation that, by means of innovation or advertizing or whatever, you can somehow revitalize the economy by conning the consumer into buying products when he lacks the funds to do so is not only absurd, it is inhuman. The current spurt in economic growth that we are experiencing stems from the end of the Iraq war, which has served to inspire consumer confidence. Bush has managed to pull off, by means of a morally dubious tactic, a solidification of consumer confidence, which suffered a serious battering after 9/11. In effect, the show of military might in Iraq achieved the objective that FDR's new deal had intended to achieve during the Great Depression. How valid or ethical this tactic is and how long its effects will last, is anyone's guess. The only problem is jobs. When will the job market open up? That's the issue at hand. It makes no sense to cut taxes when people don't have jobs, because unless you have an income to be taxed, you don't benefit from tax cuts. As such, the tax cuts inordinately benefit the wealthy, who are already earning an income. My proposals for economic recovery, based on FDR's strategy, were a humane, common sense solution to the problem, which would have immediately created jobs and inspired consumer confidence by introducing cash and job income into the economy. Bush's solution to the problem is to go to war, destroy a third world country, and then profit from rebuilding it. That's Bush's solution. I won't comment on its merits. I'll just say that, given the choice, I would have followed FDR's approach--in my mind, the more humane solution to the problem.

Based on the evidence you have presented, I concede this point to you, assuming the accuracy of your sources.

Just a comment:

There was a huge number of people here in the States who didn't want the US to enter World War II & regretted it when the war ended. And then all of the evidence of the Holocaust, in its awful horror, was made known. This parallels the Iraq war & its opponents - folks opposed it for a variety of reasons, but now that the evidence of Saddam's reign of torture is finally trickling out, you don't hear quite as much complaining.

When placed in the context of history, what matters is that an evil despot was removed...not that a few contractors profited from it.

Also, I don't think FDR's New Deal did quite as much as most liberals give it credit for. The reason the economy recovered (with a vengeance) after WWII is because the US was the only major country in the world that wasn't completely devastated by the war. The US rebuilt much of Europe and Asia, which stimulated insane amounts of growth & created countless jobs. FDR was basically a tyrant who tried to control the courts, not some great president.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Steve, I respect your point of view, but completely disagree with what you have said above, I'm sorry to say.

...... too sorry to not explain why?

That's what I thought. Holy crap, what an argument...

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

What is the main reason to why USA chose to attack Iraq and not North Korea, Zimbawe, Nigeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Ukraine, Tchad, China, Turkey, or any other country engaged in torture or oppresion of its own people?

USA didn't join WWII because of the Holocaust. They joined because they were attacked by Japan.

USA knew what was going on in Iraq in 1990 and they knew what was going on in 1980. How many people would have been saved if USA had chosen to act earlier?

It depends on how long USA are planning to occupy Iraq.

Is that why he's the only president who has ever been elected four times?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I'll explain later. I'm in too happy a frame of mind at present to obsess over politics.

I'll get back to the flaws inherent in Keynesianism when I return from my trip...


I think the twenty-second amendment had something to do with that. And seeing as how Bush is likely to be re-elected, are you willing to rely on that sort of thing as a measure for performance?

You go, boy. What was his name and duty on the Enterprise?


Oh yeah, and again with the frames! (see "Movie Obsession" thread.)

I think you know the answer to that question so I'll assume it's entirely rethorical. Otherwise it's pretty stupid. On the other hand, if George W Bush was to be elected three or even four times I would say that he is something above the ordinary president too, yes.

I am very, very aware of the fact that FDR was "a special case", but don't you think the american people would have voted on the other guy if they thought he was such a tyrant? I'm sure you can find british people who hate Churchill but it still doesn't dismiss the fact that he's generally regarded as the greatest prime minister in modern time. Just like FDR is probably generally regarded as the greatest president in modern time.

I'm not sure. North Korea hasn't been invaded because Seoul would be wiped off the map as soon as US troops bombed Pyongyang. But, as I've said before, all of these countries need to be dealt with - the war on terror should not just apply to Iraq. The Israeli and Turkish regimes both have atrocious human rights records & it baffles me why Washington caters to their every need. It's rather disgusting that nothing has been done yet about any of the countries you've mentioned, but I applaud the Bush administration's efforts to go after Saddam. This is probably the first time in US history where we've fought for democracy, rather than against it - something we can honorably be proud of.



Even after Pearl Harbor, there were large numbers of people still intent on avoiding another war. When the Holocaust evidence finally trickled here to the states, the peaceniks rightly shut up, because, well, if genocide isn't something to fight against, nothing is. The Holocaust, by itself, was reason enough. It just so happened that the original motive was Pearl Harbor.

I agree with you that the US should have never aligned itself with Saddam Hussein in the first place. But that very fact gave the US even more of a responsibility to remove him and dismantle his regime. Better now than never.

Also, I hope you realize in this statement that you're arguing for the war.

Fair enough. I will concede that the US rule in Iraq right now is alarming - here's hoping it isn't for the long term.

I don't know. But some of his practices, in my opinion, were shady, and he doesn't deserve the credit many liberals give him.

North Korea, Zimbawe, Nigeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Ukraine, Tchad, China and Turkey as well? And not forgetting Syria and Uzbekistan! LOL! Is this a new era of American colonialism? Seriously. The Iraq situation is bordering on colonialism, if not explicitly so. Bush contrives an excuse to invade a third world nation ruled by a brutal, petty dictator (who, admittedly, thrives on oppressing and torturing his own people). And let me emphasize that the basis for the Iraq war was, indeed, a contrivance, though no one really cares any more--which is much more disturbing, to me, than the fact that it was a contrivance. Now, having completely devastated the country, the US and, especially, Bush and his club of Republican buddies, are profiting hugely from their newly conquered territory. They haven't explicitly planted the US flag in Iraq, but the country is, for all intents and purposes, US territory at present. The US might just as easily make it another state or protectorate of the United States of America--they might just as easily annexe it into America. Assuming that the US invades all the other nations mentioned above, and considering that they would, probably, put up as little resistance as Iraq to the US war machine, the US could just as easily annexe all those nations as well. And profit hugely from doing so as well. Seriously, is this a new era of American colonialism and imperialism? Ironically, all this is being done in the name of freedom and democracy.

I applaud the removal of Saddam too. What I do not applaude is lying about the reasons for the attack. The republicans wanted Clinton to resign because of him lying about his sex life. But it seems to be ok to win the public opinion for war by lying about the potential threat from Iraq.

I also think the leaders of the West, Chirac and Bush in particular, handled this whole thing like kindergarten kids. I have never experienced this intense anti-americanism before in my life and I'm guessing it's the same towards europeans (because we are bundled together just as much as you are) in America. So unnecessary.

You can't use the Holocaust as a reason for fighting the WWII since the Holocaust didn't exist in our world until after the war had ended and the allied forces opened up the concentration camps.

With Iraq, on the other hand, the world has known for decades what was going on - just like in Israel, North Korea, Zimbawe, and all those other countries - and did pretty much nothing. USA gets rid of one villain and proclaims itself The Guardian of Democracy of the world when they stood beside and watched while thousands of kurds were being butchered in 1990. The american administration are supporting awful regimes today (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey... you name it) just as they supported Pinochet's Chile and a South Africa pested by apartheid. As long as it's good for business or homeland security they will support anti-democracy all over the world now and forever. Maybe I'm being cynical but the fight for democracy as the main reason for war with Iraq seems very very unbelievable to me.

True. I guess I'll just have to overlook the lying and self-righteous bull of the Bush administration and see to the bigger picture. Which I do all the time...

Yes, I know. I have always been mostly in favour of the removal of Saddam, but very much against the way it happened. I think USA bit themselves in their own ass by doing it this way. The reason to terrorism is anti-americanism, but unfortunately it's growing for every day. Let's hope Bush can balance this situation by actually doing some good in Israel.

I think it's a Catch 22. If USA leaves Iraq will be left in political chaos and perhaps make way for another undemocratic, possibly islamic fundamentalist, regime. In short, another Iran. If USA stays the frustration and anger in the iraqi people will grow and it might lead to an increased number of terror attacks. It will take several years, maybe decades, before USA have succeed in transforming Iraq into a western, America-friendly, harmless country.

I don't know. I think that maybe in those shady practices - giving the government more power over the economy - lies the reasons to why USA is the greatest economic power of the world today. Too bad that Bush and other republicans don't see that since they seem to be eager to give all the economic power to the gigantic corporations whose only aim in life is profit - never the good of the american people.

Now, hold your horses... You are seeing things in just black or white and you are simplifying a very complexed thing.

Like I have said before on this board in some other thread; I don't think USA is at all interested in colonising the world. On the contrary, I think they want to keep the rest of the world out of USA as much as possible. But since 9-11 America has realized that solid defense of its own borders is not good enough. They have to go out in the world and stop the evil before it does it again. It's isolationism - not imperialism. It's basically the same thing as with Chile or Vietnam. It's the fear of "the other" - not greed that is the reason for these wars. Fear of socialism. Fear of islam. Fear of economic power of the arabs. And, of course, fear of terrorism. These elements have to be kept out of America at any cost. Even if it means going to war on the other side of the world.

This bothers Kong as well, but the heat might be turned up soon with the various investigations on this matter getting underway. The supposed mobile biological weapons creating trucks are now considered to not be for weapons after all, and new reports are showing that the administration made up, and exagerrated information and these things are getting press. Kong thinks that although much of the public doesn't seem to care now, they might start caring as more and more fraudulence is uncovered.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

Wow. The next few months could be very interesting...

My point is: where do you draw the line between what you are talking about and outright colonialism and imperialism? Historically, imperialism always begins innocuously enough. The British and Europeans started out as traders, and subsequently found that colonialism was more efficient than trade--why bother trading with another nation when you could just as easily conquer and enslave it and then exploit it for your needs? The Romans also did not begin with an outright imperialistic agenda--they began in the context of territorial war. But they honed their war machine to the point where it became unstoppable, and that's when they turned to imperialism to manage their conquered territory. At what point does the US cross the line from merely protecting its own security and interests to resorting to colonialism or imperialism as a more efficient alternative?

Let's hope so.