Can a war boost the economy?

It is possible that we didn't go to war to find WODs or Oil?

Did we really go to war to boost the economy?
When a country gets over populated crime goes up, corruption goes up, living cost goes up, unemployment rate goes up and many other things.

is this why we went to war?

everyone,
Please advice

Thanks!

Cha-CHING !!!

Know the second biggest economic sector in the US ??........

automotive and spin-pffs.

Know the largest?

Millitary and "defense"

guns and oil and cars. thats about all there is to the equation.




Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

yes, but not this war.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sold my beloved J in April 2010 -

War has been known to boost economy, but it's only a short-term boost, which is usually accompanied by a contraction to pre-war levels, unless there are major changes to an economy.

The War in Iraq is not meant to benefit the economy on a large scale, just make a few companies and their share holders a little more rich.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Naw, Gam.....its about gaining a foothold to allow the afgahan pipline to go thru, plus secure the native interests while providing a regional bolster to the commitment to Isreal.

make it a LOT more rich




Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

War boosting economy = broken window fallacy.

Although at the rate there stealing everyone's Habeas corpus, I'd say there
getting everything they want, and then some !

War boosts the economy, sure does always has. It lowers the over all population allowing for more job opertunaties and increases manufacturering jobs building weapons so those left make more money to earn a better life for themselves and thier families. Just look at what happened at the end of WWII and you'll see what I mean. As a result we got the 50's and the kids of those who fought got to enjoy the 60's and even the 70's before the bottom fell out in the early 70's and early 80's.

War has always worked this way cause its basic less people means more for everyone thats left.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

War only boosts spending, which boosts the economy, but only for the short term.

See, it's real simple. When you spend money creating things that are ultimately destroyed, you're ultimately wasting money. The military produces near-zero product.

We may sell some planes once in a while, but usually less than a 1 billion a year in sales, which isn't profit, which is less than 1/200 the cost of this war so far.

Further, unlike cars which are also ultimately destroyed, cars are used in the daily productivity of life. You can do more when you can get places faster. But the people using missles make nothing.

The 200 billion (or whatever) used to wage this war could of been used to invest in things that appreciate...education, home purchases.. or contribute to productivity... freeways, bridges, hospitals.

When you spend money making nothing, you get nothing.

Further...

The way war boosts the economy is via the redistribution of wealth. When there's war, there's more war-related jobs. More people are employed, more people making a living. However, there are far more effecient ways to redistribute wealth.

And in this case, since we're financing this war on the backs of our grandkids, it's actually redistribution of loans.




---

They typically help the economy afterwords.

During the war of course bullet proof vest and tank manufactures economys go up.

The big this is technology, after every way in history technology has exploded... sometimes literally.

The big this is technology, after every way in history technology has exploded... sometimes literally.


well, I @!#$ that up, its friday, and time to go home..... I meant to type:

The big thing is technology, after every war in history technology has exploded... sometimes literally.

well this war doesnt seem to be helping



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85

If Bush hadn't been running the country through FDC Red Dye #5 like it was gasoline, you'd probably see a lot more happening.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Cable wrote:The big this is technology, after every way in history technology has exploded... sometimes literally.


well, I @!#$ that up, its friday, and time to go home..... I meant to type:

The big thing is technology, after every war in history technology has exploded... sometimes literally.

No, only certain wars have produced beefit. Many look at WWI and WWII as examples, but those wars were different. Technology was already well on it's way, but the wars gave it a push. A huge, previously untapped labour force was brought into being, the working women. Think about post WWII.. Vetrans could not find work, the jobs were filled by women. Yes there was properity because of a tech boom, definately, but that won't happen that way again. We don't have any great leaps just around the corner. We are not discovering new materials anymore (at the rate we did then). We are not creating a huge wartime industrial complexe (like the WW eras).

War has never stopped on the planet. There is no "war time boom" really because there has been no peace time. There is not one moment in history were there isn't a war being fought somewhere.

The US underwent huge changes post WWI because they were basicly a non-power in 1900, but by the end of 1918 things were starting to change. Entering WWII was a huge benefit to the US because it established them as a parttner in the world, no longer isolationist. It brought the aircraft industry and other manufacturing jobs that the US did not have before. Now it has all that, there will be nothing new from these conflicts in the middle east, just energy (Oil) and debt.

PAX

The US has had a war driven economy for a good long while now. If were not selling the weaponds to ourselves (US Military forces). We're selling it to other countries.

The US is good at WAR, really good at it. We have the best methods of killing people and are willing sell it off to anyone who can pay the price, and then we get mad when they use it against us. War has always boosted the economy be it in the US or somewhere else.


-Chris

AGuSTiN wrote:War only boosts spending, which boosts the economy, but only for the short term.

See, it's real simple. When you spend money creating things that are ultimately destroyed, you're ultimately wasting money. The military produces near-zero product.

We may sell some planes once in a while, but usually less than a 1 billion a year in sales, which isn't profit, which is less than 1/200 the cost of this war so far.

Further, unlike cars which are also ultimately destroyed, cars are used in the daily productivity of life. You can do more when you can get places faster. But the people using missles make nothing.

The 200 billion (or whatever) used to wage this war could of been used to invest in things that appreciate...education, home purchases.. or contribute to productivity... freeways, bridges, hospitals.

When you spend money making nothing, you get nothing.

Further...

The way war boosts the economy is via the redistribution of wealth. When there's war, there's more war-related jobs. More people are employed, more people making a living. However, there are far more effecient ways to redistribute wealth.

And in this case, since we're financing this war on the backs of our grandkids, it's actually redistribution of loans.

bingo bango jengo

have my babies



The biggest hole, is the illusion of invulnerability.

:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

Isn't it Bingo, bango, bongo Nate?




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Here's a good read ...

War and Economy wrote:
The Broken Window Fallacy is brilliantly illustrated in Henry Hazlitt's Economics in one Lesson. The book is still as useful today as it was when it was first published in 1946; I give it my highest recommendation. In it, Hazlitt gives the example of a vandal throwing a brick through a shopkeeper's window. The shopkeeper will have to purchase a new window from a glass shop for a sum of money, say $250. A crowd of people who see the broken window decide that the broken window may have positive benefits:

"After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be ... that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor." (p. 23 - Hazlitt)

The crowd is correct in realizing that the local glass shop will benefit from this act of vandalism. They have not considered, however, what the shopkeeper would have spent the $250 on something else if he did not have to replace the window. He might have been saving that money for a new set of golf clubs, but since he has now spent the money, he cannot and the golf shop has lost a sale. He might have used the money to purchase new equipment for his business, or to take a vacation, or to purchase new clothing. So the glass store's gain is another store's loss, so there hasn't been a net gain in economic activity. In fact, there has been a decline in the economy:

"Instead of [the shopkeeper] having a window and $250, he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window or the suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer." (p. 24 - Hazlitt)

The Broken Window Fallacy is enduring because of the difficulty of seeing what the shopkeeper would have done. We can see the gain that goes to the glass shop. We can see the new pane of glass in the front of the store. However, we cannot see what the shopkeeper would have done with the money if he had been allowed to keep it, precisely because he wasn't allowed to keep it. We cannot see the set of golf clubs not purchased or the new suit foregone. Since the winners are easily identifiable and the losers not, it's easy to conclude that there are only winners and the economy as a whole is better off.

The faulty logic of the Broken Window Fallacy occurs all the time with arguments supporting government programs. A politician will claim that his new government program to provide winter coats to poor families has been a roaring success, because he can point to all the people who have coats who didn't have them before. It's likely that there will be several new stories on the coat program, and pictures of people wearing the coats will be on the 6 o'clock news. Since we see the benefits of the program, the politician will convince the public that his program was a huge success. Of course, what we do not see is the school lunch proposal that was never implemented to implement the coat program, or the decline in economic activity from the added taxes needed to pay for the coats.

In a real life example, scientist and environmental activist David Suzuki has often claimed that a corporation polluting a river adds to a country's GDP. If the river has become polluted, an expensive program will be required to clean up the river. Residents may choose to buy more expensive bottled water rather than cheaper tap water. Suzuki points to this new economic activity, which will raise GDP, and claim that the GDP has risen overall in the community although the quality of life surely has decreased. Dr. Suzuki, however, forgot to take into account all the decreases in GDP that will be caused by the water pollution precisely because the economic losers are far more difficult to identify than the economic winners. We do not know what the government or the taxpayers would have done with the money had they not needed to clean up the river. We know from the Broken Window Fallacy that there will be an overall decline in GDP, not a rise. One has to wonder if politicians and activists are arguing in good faith or if they realize the logical fallacies in their arguments but hope the voters will not.

From the Broken Window Fallacy it is quite easy to see why the war will not benefit the economy. The extra money spent on the war is money that will not be spent elsewhere. The war can be funded in a combination of three ways:

1. Increasing taxes
2. Decrease spending in other areas
3. Increasing the debt

Increasing taxes reduces consumer spending, which does not help the economy improve at all. Suppose we decrease government spending on social programs. Firstly we've lost the benefits those social programs provide. The recipients of those programs will now have less money to spend on other items, so the economy will decline as a whole. Increasing the debt means that we'll either have to decrease spending or increase taxes in the future; it's a way to delay the inevitable. Plus there's all those interest payments in the meantime.

If you're not convinced yet, imagine that instead of dropping bombs on Baghdad, the army was dropping refrigerators in the ocean. The army could get the refrigerators in one of two ways:

1. They could get every American to give them $50 to pay for the fridges.
2. The army could come to your house and take your fridge.

Does anyone seriously believe there would be an economic benefit to the first choice? You now have $50 less to spend on other goods and the price of fridges will likely increase due to the added demand. So you'd lose twice if you were planning on buying a new fridge. Sure the appliance manufacturers love it, and the army might have fun filling the Atlantic with Fridgidaires, but this would not outweigh the harm done to every American who is out $50 and all the stores that will experience a decline in sales due to the decline in consumer disposable income.

As far as the second one, do you think you'd feel wealthier if the army came and took your appliances away from you? The idea of the government coming in and taking your things may seem ridiculous, but it's not any different than increasing your taxes. At least under this plan you get to use the stuff for awhile, whereas with the extra taxes, you have to pay them before you have an opportunity to spend the money.

So in the short run the war will hurt the economy of the United States and their allies. It goes without saying that flattening most of Iraq to rubble will decimate the economy of that country. Hawks are hoping that by ridding Iraq of Saddam, a democratic pro-business leader can come in and improve the economy of that country in the long run. The economy of the United States could improve in the long run due to the war for a couple of reasons:

1.
An increased supply of oil
Depending on who you ask, the war either has everything to do with Iraq's vast oil supplies, or absolutely nothing to do with it. All sides should agree that if a regime with better American relations were set up in Iraq, the supply of oil to the United States would increase. This will drive down the price of oil, as well as driving down the costs of companies that use oil as a factor of production which will certainly help economic growth.
2.
Stability and Economic Growth in the Middle East
If peace can somehow be established in the Middle East, the U.S. government might not have to spend as much money on the military as they do now. If the economies of the countries in the middle east become more stable and experience growth, this will give them more opportunities to trade with the United States, improving both the economies of those countries and the U.S.

Personally I do not see those factors outweighing the short term costs of the war in Iraq, but you can make a case for them. In the short term, however, the economy will decline due to the war as shown by the Broken Window Fallacy. Next time you hear someone discuss the economic benefits of the war, please tell them a little story about a windowbreaker and a shopkeeper.

Thanks for the reading, it was interesting.

The money spent on the war is money that will not be spent elsewhere.
The war can be funded in a combination of three ways:

1. Increasing taxes
2. Decrease spending in other areas
3. Increasing the debt

I don't agree with this part:
"the supply of oil to the United States would increase. This will drive down the price of oil"
According to CNN, Oil prices are going up.

War is not going to boost econmy in this contry anymore. To much has changed in the last few decades. Too many jobs/products have been outsourced and sent to different countries and we/our economy depends on other countries WAY too much.





RE Audio

it was the case for former wars, one of the biggest being world war 2 which destroyed the great depression and made a huge economic boom in the US.


i still believe that war is the biggest reason america is the strongest/best nation today


this war probably cost us in the long run.


-Borsty

I am waiting for China to take more control of their population by invaiding someone.

I have a friend from Taiwan,
He said "If China ever invades Taiwan, the island will sink"



(too many ppl)

Borsty wrote:it was the case for former wars, one of the biggest being world war 2 which destroyed the great depression and made a huge economic boom in the US.


i still believe that war is the biggest reason america is the strongest/best nation today


this war probably cost us in the long run.

It's killign your GDP in the short run too. And you don't even get to have low gas prices!




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

this was is also so America has a foothold in the middle east if something were to start sparking like with this Iran problem right now its easier o have a base in Iraq then it is the air fuel b-1's,b-2's and b-52's from air strips from Germany and America, also by having Iraq as a staging area we can basically give Iran a two front battle with Israel on one side and U.S. on the other its all Military Strategics not to make it sound like a game but play RISK or Axis Allies and and you will see how having a two front war on your opponent makes it living hell for them.

There is already a foot hold in Saudi Arabia.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.