General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPope says many powerful don't want peace, Francis says arms production is 'industry of death'
Not much at the link but those words do ring true.
http://www.ansa.it/english/news/vatican/2015/05/11/pope-says-many-powerful-dont-want-peace_be1929fb-80a1-4f31-a099-7f24443e3928.html
ananda
(28,877 posts)Wrong on so many other things.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)it should be admired and not ignored.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Thank you Pope Frankie.
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)Mind you, the Papacy and Church don't have the strongest records when it comes to promoting peace, but hey, that's history.
Pope Francis has a remarkable capacity for stating the obvious. Which is not completely a knock, since most of his predecessors just kept their mouths shut.
-- Mal
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Many praise peace with varying degrees of sincerity, but very few directly confront the financial incentives profiting the powerful that drive us into wars. They maintain the fiction that armaments almost always are procured in order to "preserve the peace." Francis deserves real credit for speaking clearly on this.
malthaussen
(17,217 posts)It's not like he has to run for re-election every few years, or stroke donors constantly. He may alienate a few big capitalists, but the Church gets a pretty nice income from the peasants, and anyway Francis has simple tastes.
Eisenhower's warning about the MIC at the end of his presidency is comparable.
-- Mal
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)It's just that what both Francis and Eisenhower (and Bob Dylan in "Masters of War" said doesn't get said nearly enough by anyone who millions will listen to - so I err on the side of giving credit to anyone who says it.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)The difference is in media coverage. You'd think Francis was some kind of revolutionary with the way the media covers him, but in reality everything he's said -- including about gays -- has been said many times before by predecessors.
People seem to forget that Benedict also spoke out about the excesses of capitalism and the wealth gap, too. Wrote an entire book called "The Crisis of Capitalism", in fact.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)And now, the second reading of the Gospel, brought to you by the good folks at Wal*Mart where our prices are always low.
This morning's homily brought to you by Lockheed Martin corporation.
The sacraments are generously supplied by Kraft foods.
etc.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has seen the future and it looks bleak for most of us. Thankfully, the United States of America may be in for good times, especially for those perched atop the socio-economic pyramid scheme, should war break out.
The Pitfalls of Peace
The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014
The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.
An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.
The world just hasnt had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but todays casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.
Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nations longer-run prospects.
It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not todays entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.
War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.
SNIP...
Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you dont get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but its something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0
[font color="purple"]Dr. Cowen, from what I've read, is a fine person and not one to promulgate war. He's just sayin'.
He has commented on other Big Ticket economic themes impacting us today: "Inequality," for another instance. [/font color]
Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse
by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM
Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:
"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."
It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.
SNIP...
Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.
CONTINUED with link to the audio...
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse
For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, we can't afford that now, obviously, thanks to austerity or the sequester or the divided government.
What's important is that the 1-percent may swell to a 15-percent "upper middle class." Unfortunately, that may see the rest of the middle class go the other way. Why does that ring a bell? Oh yeah.
"Commercial interests are very powerful interests," said George W Bush on Feb. 14, 2007 White House press conference in which he added, "Let me put it this way, ah, sometimes, ah, money trumps peace." And then he giggled and not a single member of the callow, cowed and corrupt press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up.
Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention back in 2007. I don't recall even one reporter from the national corporate owned news seeing it fit to comment. Certainly not many have commented on how three generations of Bush men -- Senator Prescott Sheldon Bush, President George Herbert Walker Bush and pretzeldent George Walker Bush all had their eyes on Iraq's oil.
I wish the Press had done its job, though. Those in authority would have to do their job. Millions might still be alive, the People might use the money spent on wars in better ways, and the Republic might see a return to Justice.
Thank goodness for Pope Francis.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I think it's such an obvious truth that it goes unnoticed. So it's nice when guys with an audience call attention to it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)them down the economy world wide would be effected.
I am not happy about this but after seeing a post here on DU about where the weapons are manufactured in so many countries around the world it dawned on me that too much of the worlds economy is dependent on them - including ours.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Profiteers are in the 1% that he has vowed to make some waves, at least. Little by little, the People are beginning to wake up a bit. Technology helps. A national candidate even more.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)just arms. It's OIL OIL OIL and all those cheesy but expensive support industries for the personnel (except, of course, decent veterans medical support; that's too costly).