"The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth"

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0

Actual NYT headline.

There may be a cogent argument in there. I honestly don't know. My brain vapor-locked at the headline.

[tridim]

1. End the major war on Cannabis/Hemp and watch what happens to economic growth. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. +1.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Yep

What you said.

[Turbineguy]

3. Maybe Cheney wrote it.

[dilby]

4. This is true because war is a racket that turns profit for the 1%.

When they say economic growth I am sure they are not saying who's economic growth because it's not yours or mine.

[dsc]

5. It actually is a very interesting argument

basically from the first few paragraphs it seems the argument is that war, or at least the possibility of war, focuses governments on making decisions that help economies. On edit this is actually a very interesting piece. The final argument is that economic growth isn't everything and that we are better off with peace and lower growth than war and higher growth.

[avebury]

6. If we would stop investing in war and

invest in the US infrastructure that would help Economic Growth. and improve our own country. If we would push investment in green technology that would help our economy. If we stop allowing the few to restrict what the many can do that would help the economy (for example - making people who install solar panels to pay a fee like Oklahoma is going to do). We have not even scratched the surface of what we could do within this country.

[Enthusiast]

30. +1 an entire shit load.

I'm with you.

[roamer65]

7. One of the first major jobs of the new Federal Reserve in 1915.

It was arranging war funding for cash strapped Britain and France in WW1.

Central bankers love big wars and I'm sure that addiction has not stopped.

[rurallib]

8. how about we replace war with some major, much needed projects

like getting off oil to start.

[roamer65]

9. J Robert Oppenheimer changed the equation in July, 1945.

The testing and subsequent use of atomic weapons has now brought about a fear of large wars such as WW2 and WW1. Invariably, a new large war would lead to use of nuclear weapons.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Well, that's one way to look at it, and...

war is pretty much the only thing we've got that the nation can agree on spending money on. And it's a lot of money.

Arguments are made that no matter how many parks and bridges were built during the Depression, the total war economy of WWII is what really brought us out of it. And, after the war we were rebuilding European and Japanese economies that were devastated by it so everyone got a boost.

However, that argument has a disturbing similarity to the one that says I'm broke, so I'll go out and steal a bunch of money.

The proper argument is that that the best economic growth is when everyone has enough money to meet their needs and a little more. We spend and the multiplier effect takes over and everything gets better. Unfortunately, that means higher wages, better wealth distribution, and subsidized education, rents, and other things that we just don't want to do. For some reason, even those who would benefit the most don't want these "socialist" plans.

People are, in the end, just assholes. We haven't completed evolving, and we are at a place where we may get the chance to finish.

[Savannahmann]

11. Look at the number of tech companies that build war material

Drones are built. Computers and programming made to control the drones. MRAP trucks were built, and that took a lot of raw material, hardened steel, big diesel engines, heavy rubber for the tires. Bullets and uniforms, field rations and medical supplies. All of it cost money, and all of it requires companies to shift production to that much needed war supply industry.

Let's just examine vehicles to carry the troops. Big diesel engines means that some company has to make them. Those big diesel engines get shipped to another company who puts them on a heavy duty chassis. The same with the transmissions and differentials. Then a couple tons of steel plate are delivered, cut with customized machines, welded by workers and machines. It takes a lot of money, and a lot of work to make just one of those big rolling tanks.

Body armor for the troops. Even the sunscreen the troops use to fight sunburn has to be purchased.

Then there are the flights, getting the troops there, getting the supplies there, and getting the troops out of there. Some airlines exist only to carry the troops on such deployments. Other airlines buy extra planes to manage the contracts. Now, without the war those planes are going to sit idle, or at least have far fewer flights.

I saw one story about a company that was building tankers for the airplanes of the navy and marines. They were converting old Boeing 707's to be used as airborne tankers. The entire business plan of that company is to provide airborne refueling for navy and marine pilots in training environments. Seriously. Because if they ever lose the contract, that company is out of business and everyone is unemployed.

Plenty of people saw a specialized need that they could fill in the war economy. The same was true of World War II. The famous Higgens Boats that carried many troops ashore on beaches in Europe and the Pacific were the brainchild of one inventor. After the war, Higgens slowly went broke as there was no need for his boats anymore.

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. Tyler Cowen.... from his wikipedia page

He was a supporter of the Iraq War.

In 2012, David Brooks called Cowen one of the most influential bloggers on the right, writing that he is among those who "start from broadly libertarian premises but do not apply them in a doctrinaire way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen

[marmar]

13. An economic system that needs a war to function ......

...... is one that needs to be abandoned. Quickly.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. And that economic system is capitalism in the imperial age....

Last edited Sat Jun 14, 2014, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

This is well known in revolutionary socialist circles.

During the initial growth cycles of early stage capitalism, you could have expansion in-country without the actual NEED for colonial and semi-colonial markets and resources. Not so much for a century or more. The only way for the system to grow and expand is through taking what others have.

There are areas, especially involving the actual NATURE of capitalism, that Marxists and the neo-liberals agree. Of course the proscriptions that follow from that agreement differ.

[Enthusiast]

31. +1 a whole fucking bunch.

I'm with you.

[malaise]

14. They are saying openly what we knew

War is very profitable - particularly for those who love the idea of privatizing national security. Once the profits grow you will need more wars for the never quenched thirst for more profits.

[Skidmore]

15. Makes one wonder if a peace dividend couldn't be paid if

US infrastructure could be repaired and modernized, or we could rebuild whole American cities with the 21st century mind. The lack of vision of the monied class and corporations is mindboggling. Would as much attention be paid to the nation as is paid to the decor of boardrooms, penthouses, and country clubs.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. It sounds not implausible.

I believe it's quite widely held that WW2 played a big role in ending the depression.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. " The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed...

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.  H.L. Mencken

[MFrohike]

19. What a hack

He's confusing the the political will to spend like mad during wartime with the current preference to launder all spending through the wealthy before tossing a few nickels to the unwashed.

[KG]

20. no, it's bullshit.

written by a bullshitter.

[Zorra]

21. Capitalism causes war? Who knew? nt

[jwirr]

22. Once upon a time there may have beed some truth in that. The Great Depression era is an example.

We were an agrarian country with little manufacturing on a large scale and few exports. The war required that all of that change and we had a great deal of growth that translated into wealth, a middle class and good paying jobs.

Today is different. The war machine (otherwise known as MIC) is up and running and is about all we have left after the great outsourcing spree of the last 30+ years. Any money that is to be made is in the hands of the 1% and as often as possible made in some other country. War is only profitable for the rich today.

I say keep your war and shove it.

[Brigid]

23. So Smedley Butler is back from the dead . . .

And writing for the New York Times?

[Octafish]

27. He's no Smedley Butler.

The guy's with Big Oil.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141218/tyler-cowen/capital-punishment

[whatchamacallit]

24. And thus ISIS is born

[bigtree]

25. so the argument is that government spending helps the economy

. . . start there and change the spending priorities from warring abroad to U.S. infrastructure.

[Octafish]

26. The Paper of War

Since Nov. 22, 1963: "Money trumps peace."



The Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

The Newspaper of War

by Howard Friel
Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 by Common Dreams

Many years ago, Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam, Communist China, and Soviet Russia were saying one thing about what had happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in early August 1964, while President Johnson and top administration officials were all saying the exact opposite. How should the Times have responded to that situation, assuming a commitment to an independent press and an informed citizenry?

Ten years earlier, in July 1954, the governments of Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and China all signed the Final Declaration of the Geneva Accord on Vietnam, which formally concluded France’s U.S.-supported colonial war in Vietnam. The United States refused to sign, and thereafter proceeded to undermine the most important stipulation of the accord – that elections to unify the northern and southern zones of Vietnam take place in 1956. By what journalistic criteria should the New York Times have covered this refusal by the Eisenhower administration to sign and comply with the Geneva Accord on Vietnam, which opened the door to the twenty-year American military campaign in Vietnam?

When Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice claimed in 2001-2003 that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including an active nuclear weapons program, and when Saddam Hussein denied those claims, what journalistic standard did the Times apply in its response to those conflicting claims?

Journalism schools should teach a course focused on questions like these, given that over the past sixty years the Times and every other mainstream news organization has repeatedly flunked such tests, in each instance aiding the government’s efforts in its illegal interventions and wars.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/05/13-0

This is the "paper of record" that gave us Judith Miller and aluminum tubes, while failing to mention word that George W Bush's illegal domestic spying operation until after Selection 2004. I also want to emphasize this paper has done all it can to keep up the fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot President John F. Kennedy, who had ordered withdrawal of the U.S. from Vietnam. In addition, this is an important read for those interested in seeing how Corporate McPravda exclusively serves the warmongers and not the People, as intended by the nation's Founders in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. This is why

As long as we spend more on the military... than the next ten nations combined.

By the way, this is from the San Diego County Budget...

TEN LARGEST EMPLOYERS:
2012 2013 Employees Employees

U.S. Department of Defense 133,323 136,664
Federal Government 45,500 46,100
State of California 42,900 44,700
University of California, San Diego
27,391 26,000
County of San Diego1
16,010 16,627
San Diego Unified School District
14,603 14,438
Sharp Healthcare 15,231 14,390
Scripps Health 14,097 13,000
Qualcomm Inc. 11,400 11,775
City of San Diego 10,057 10,296
1County of San Diego, Fiscal Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 Adopted Operational Plans.
Source: San Diego Business Journal, Book of Lists 2013.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/auditor/budinfo.html

As long as your top employer in many towns in this country is the DOD, what do you expect?

Why I urge you to start looking, in detail mind you, at both your Federal and Local budgets. It is not fun trust me... ah the City budget is a strong beacon right now.

Oh wait, there is some distraction, or another, that will prevent media from doing this. Mind you, not all media. We are doing it. And our resources are not that deep. Now, I need to brew coffee. The County one left me with a big case of coffee needed, I expect the same from the City one.

http://nadinabbottblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/san-diego-county-budget-released/

But some of us are indeed looking in detail at budgets.

[LeftInTX]

29. That article is all over the place and is not relevant for today's world

Seems like Tyler Cowen is living in the "good old days" of WWII and the Cold War.

Yes, our space program and many innovations were initiated by our ongoing conflict with the Soviets.

But what innovations are needed today? We aren't competing with a large nation such as the Soviets. What do we "build" that will "impress and/or suppress Al Qaida"?

Yeah, I guess we could build a bunch of stuff to impress North Korea, but I'm just not feeling it.

ETA: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did nothing to improve our economy

[Enthusiast]

32. Pluuuuuus one!

I'm with you!

[Enthusiast]

33. There are far better ways to stimulate the economy

than starting wars.

[Jim Lane]

34. The real argument is: Only war or threat of war overcomes our right-wing hatred of government.

He disclaims Keynesianism, but that is part of it. The right-wingers stop their deficit hysteria when it comes to military spending. The big deficits to fight World War II ended the Depression, and Reagan's record-setting deficits also led to economic growth. Romney picked up this theme in 2008 by criticizing cuts in military spending that would cost jobs. It's the only circumstance in which Republicans concede that government spending can create jobs -- "military Keynesianism". In our current circumstances, with high unemployment caused by a shortfall in aggregate demand, a bigger government deficit would indeed help economic growth. The kernel of truth in the article is that a big military build-up would be the only way to get such a bill passed in the House.

The right-wing antipathy toward spending is one part of their general attitude toward government. Cowen writes, "War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon." That also has a kernel of truth: We have, for example, urgent environmental problems, and a substantial government investment in clean-energy technologies could produce breakthroughs. Cowen, referring to the Manhattan Project, mourns, "It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days." It is indeed hard to imagine -- again, because of Cowen and his allies. The House Republicans would have no problem with a big project for a missile defense system or the militarization of space, but propose the exact same spending to address climate change and they'd block it.

[BootinUp]

35. Tyler Cowen is just another idiot that ignores basic economic lessons

and ignores arguments from salt water economists. Therefore, how can he possibly add to a real understanding of economics, maybe if he gets lucky.

[pampango]

36. Progressive countries have strong middle classes and small defense budgets.

You would hope that we can figure out their "secret" one day.