Economics and War
Oct 22, 2008 General Nonsense |
I wonder if economics is making war obsolete, at least for the larger countries. Waging war is just too damned expensive, even if your enemy lives in mud huts. If you're looking for the silver lining to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, here it is: They prove once and for all that the occupier doesn't come out ahead even by "winning."
It makes more sense to turn off the economic spigot to any country that starts to look threatening to its neighbor. Arguably, the United States is already in a war with Iran, but it takes the form of developing alternative fuels. When Iran can no longer find much of a market for its oil, it will have to start being a lot friendlier. The same goes for the United States. The next President of The United States (probably Obama) will be projecting a new humility thanks to a crippled economy.
North Korea has been defeated economically, for all practical purposes. So was the Soviet Union. Venezuela is getting less cocky as the price of oil plummets. China has become zero threat to the U.S. because of economic interests.
Terrorism is still the wild card. But the end of oil will put more of a dent in terrorism than any war could.
In the old days you could make a profit from a good war, thanks to pillaging and slavery. Those days have passed. Switzerland has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
I think the age of big war has passed.
It makes more sense to turn off the economic spigot to any country that starts to look threatening to its neighbor. Arguably, the United States is already in a war with Iran, but it takes the form of developing alternative fuels. When Iran can no longer find much of a market for its oil, it will have to start being a lot friendlier. The same goes for the United States. The next President of The United States (probably Obama) will be projecting a new humility thanks to a crippled economy.
North Korea has been defeated economically, for all practical purposes. So was the Soviet Union. Venezuela is getting less cocky as the price of oil plummets. China has become zero threat to the U.S. because of economic interests.
Terrorism is still the wild card. But the end of oil will put more of a dent in terrorism than any war could.
In the old days you could make a profit from a good war, thanks to pillaging and slavery. Those days have passed. Switzerland has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
I think the age of big war has passed.
Votes: +2
Comments
User Name: Coldman
Jan 19, 2009
0
There is no good economic reason for modern industrialized countries to go to war anymore. Everyone could gain far more from peaceful trade than by attempting to loot each others' resources by conquest.
The only reason that war persists anywhere other than the least developed parts of the world is ideology. In other words, it persists because one or both parties is ideologically fanatical. In variably, the types of ideologies that serve as the trigger for modern wars include religious supremacism, nationalism, and communism - ie. all theories that elevate the group over the individual.
The solution is for people to see themselves as individuals first, and members of collectives second.
The only reason that war persists anywhere other than the least developed parts of the world is ideology. In other words, it persists because one or both parties is ideologically fanatical. In variably, the types of ideologies that serve as the trigger for modern wars include religious supremacism, nationalism, and communism - ie. all theories that elevate the group over the individual.
The solution is for people to see themselves as individuals first, and members of collectives second.
User Name: mig
Nov 24, 2008
0
User Name: Lisainred
Nov 4, 2008
0
I am very worried that if Obama wins, we will be facing more war, not less. Terrorists will feel freer to attack us. It's no fluke that both Iraq and Israel wanted McCain to win, b/c he is far stronger on national security and will protect those states.
Also, I fear what will happen if and when Obama is assassinated. At the very least, he can't possibly measure up to what many blacks and young people expect him to be, the Savior of this land. How can they possibly expect so much of one man? This change mantra is so simplistic it's silly. I almost feel sorry for him in that respect.
Going back to 1960s liberalism and the Great Society is not the answer. Look at the Bible; lazy people will always be poor. We can't wipe out poverty; that's unrealistic.
Unions would proliferate, and we all know that their greed destroyed the auto and airline industries, just to name a few.
Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave...
Also, I fear what will happen if and when Obama is assassinated. At the very least, he can't possibly measure up to what many blacks and young people expect him to be, the Savior of this land. How can they possibly expect so much of one man? This change mantra is so simplistic it's silly. I almost feel sorry for him in that respect.
Going back to 1960s liberalism and the Great Society is not the answer. Look at the Bible; lazy people will always be poor. We can't wipe out poverty; that's unrealistic.
Unions would proliferate, and we all know that their greed destroyed the auto and airline industries, just to name a few.
Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave...
User Name: Devildog1998
Nov 4, 2008
+1
Today, should be remembered as a day of infamy.....by all standards of a late, great president. We as Americans should be ashamed of the actions of others, though regarded by some as actions of a patriot, the news has already begun to report on actions taken by some that are down right IGNORANT!!! When a presidential candidate has backing of scrupulous groups, and some that are know for violence, and racial seperatism, that does not say alot about that individuals moral or ethical view. And as for the economic struggles we are facing, let's be serious, it is a worldwide epidemic, not just a local event. May God have mercy on us all.....
User Name: eyelip
Nov 4, 2008
0
Guru Adams sez "Voters are so dumb they can be swayed by signs."
Gee, I thought that putting up a yard sign was about expressing your views, not necessarily about swaying others. Hmmm, I seem to remember something about freedom of speech or something in that ratty old constitution. Or isn't that allowed anymore in the United States of Elbonia?
Gee, I thought that putting up a yard sign was about expressing your views, not necessarily about swaying others. Hmmm, I seem to remember something about freedom of speech or something in that ratty old constitution. Or isn't that allowed anymore in the United States of Elbonia?
User Name: gravitation
Oct 26, 2008
0
I am sorry for the double posting. I am a newbie at this game. With respect to the topic of this discussion, a new world order could mean peace forever, or something, perhaps not quit the opposite, but not much different from what we know already.
User Name: gravitation
Oct 25, 2008
0
I posted this comment but didn't see it posted. We need to think outside of the box, outside of those cute little dolls within dolls within dolls within dolls.... We need to think. Considering the cataclysmic global events that have unfolded since 9/11, I wonder if we're not on the way to a world government, governed not by politicians but by such groups as the IMF, Group of 7-10, World Bank, and other, as yet unidentified "economic advisory groups." My musings are secondary to my re-reading Hobbs' Leviathan but I wonder: was it just the way things happened, or was it all planned? And if it was planned, by whom and what is their agenda?
User Name: gravitation
Oct 25, 2008
0
Considering the cataclysmic global events that have unfolded since 9/11, I wonder if we're not on the way to a world government, governed not by politicians but by such groups as the IMF, Group of 7-10, World Bank, and other, as yet unidentified economic advisory groups. My musings are secondary to my reading Hobbs' Leviathan but I wonder: was it just the way things happened, or was it planned? And if it was planned, by whom and what is their agenda?
User Name: IGC1
Oct 25, 2008
0
I can't help but to completely disagree with you!
Not only war is not bad for US economics, but it's always been one of the better industries for the country.
The american army sells guns, military equipment and vehicles overseas (no matter how many people is killed with them) and employs millions of US citizens, either directly or indirectly.
So I think is pretty simple-minded to think that the United States will ever keep a long-lasting world peace.Not only have the american governments made loads of enemies through the years (enough to keep the country worried for upcoming terrorist attacks almost forever) but it is also in their own economic interest to start/get into a war every 5 to 10 years. It doesn't matter the number of casualties caused by these "tragic events". Business is business and in the capitalist way of thinking money is very often more important than life. Besides, the americans that die in those wars are mostly inmigrants and poor people, and it seems that most people don't give a damn for them...
Sorry to talk like a comunist, which I'm far from being ;) Just trying to set some facts and not ignoring the reality.
If you don't believe me, check american history books -they're filled with wars- and the HUGE budget of the department of defense of the US.
Not only war is not bad for US economics, but it's always been one of the better industries for the country.
The american army sells guns, military equipment and vehicles overseas (no matter how many people is killed with them) and employs millions of US citizens, either directly or indirectly.
So I think is pretty simple-minded to think that the United States will ever keep a long-lasting world peace.Not only have the american governments made loads of enemies through the years (enough to keep the country worried for upcoming terrorist attacks almost forever) but it is also in their own economic interest to start/get into a war every 5 to 10 years. It doesn't matter the number of casualties caused by these "tragic events". Business is business and in the capitalist way of thinking money is very often more important than life. Besides, the americans that die in those wars are mostly inmigrants and poor people, and it seems that most people don't give a damn for them...
Sorry to talk like a comunist, which I'm far from being ;) Just trying to set some facts and not ignoring the reality.
If you don't believe me, check american history books -they're filled with wars- and the HUGE budget of the department of defense of the US.
User Name: Lisainred
Oct 24, 2008
0
Bloodboiler,
I disagree about war benefiting corporations. Both Halliburton and Blackwater have lost people in Iraq. Sure, they are greedy like many corps, but I don't see why they'd want to start or aid and abet a war just to make money. This might sound naive, but I point out that big CEOs from eBay and Microsoft are stepping up to help out the poor during this global financial crisis. The founder of eBay also wants to make governments and the media more transparent and accountable. THE MEDIA. Imagine that!
The media always hounds government and plays watchdog, but who watches them? No one.
I disagree about war benefiting corporations. Both Halliburton and Blackwater have lost people in Iraq. Sure, they are greedy like many corps, but I don't see why they'd want to start or aid and abet a war just to make money. This might sound naive, but I point out that big CEOs from eBay and Microsoft are stepping up to help out the poor during this global financial crisis. The founder of eBay also wants to make governments and the media more transparent and accountable. THE MEDIA. Imagine that!
The media always hounds government and plays watchdog, but who watches them? No one.
User Name: Lisainred
Oct 24, 2008
0
I agree that the global economy means less war.
Don't agree, however, that Obama will probably be our next president. People I talk to -- even Democrats -- want some checks and balances. A Democratic Congress and Republican president.
We need experience to deal with the financial crisis, someone who also understands we can't be taxed to death and want to keep working. The Dems did a survey in the '90s and somehow concluded people would keep working even if 95 percent of their income was taken away by the feds.
Huh? Sounds like socialism to me.
Don't agree, however, that Obama will probably be our next president. People I talk to -- even Democrats -- want some checks and balances. A Democratic Congress and Republican president.
We need experience to deal with the financial crisis, someone who also understands we can't be taxed to death and want to keep working. The Dems did a survey in the '90s and somehow concluded people would keep working even if 95 percent of their income was taken away by the feds.
Huh? Sounds like socialism to me.
User Name: Zuluwarrior
Oct 24, 2008
0
Dilbert Dude,
Need to find a way to fine tune that filter of yours.
You bleeped the word "roaches" with a C an oh a C and a K in front of it.
It's in the dictionary. They're a type of bug. Boric Acid kills them. Look it up.
Shaka
Need to find a way to fine tune that filter of yours.
You bleeped the word "roaches" with a C an oh a C and a K in front of it.
It's in the dictionary. They're a type of bug. Boric Acid kills them. Look it up.
Shaka
User Name: tragicmishap
Oct 24, 2008
0
Very good post gargamel9.
As long as there is hate, pride, greed, envy or vengeful desire to redress past grievances, there will be war. Where there is war, the strength of those human feelings is the only limit to how bad it can get.
As long as there is hate, pride, greed, envy or vengeful desire to redress past grievances, there will be war. Where there is war, the strength of those human feelings is the only limit to how bad it can get.
User Name: Zuluwarrior
Oct 24, 2008
0
Nerds,
What this world needs is a good Nuke Yuh Lur war.
That way the !$%*!$%*!$% can take over and mother earth will breathe easy again.
I'm stocking up on Boric Acid just in case they miss me.
Shaka
What this world needs is a good Nuke Yuh Lur war.
That way the !$%*!$%*!$% can take over and mother earth will breathe easy again.
I'm stocking up on Boric Acid just in case they miss me.
Shaka
User Name: gargamel9
Oct 24, 2008
0
Hi there scott...IMHO a look to history is always the best way to assert questions like this as opposed to making theories about the future…
Its not the first time an idea like that pops out. In the late XIX early XX, a lot of extremely intelligent and competent people thought that given the fact that the economy was for the first time global, and that due to the nature of it needing (not just to grow but to maintain itself) a global market free on the most part from the intervention of the states and above all dependent on the possibility that trade is maintained between all developed countries, something that a war would obviously not allow. Due to this huge dependence upon trade for the economies, it was thought, not surprisingly, unthinkable that anyone would want to go to war, as it would bring the destruction of the whole system and thus spawn misery for all, not just the defeated countries.
Even then in the early XX century, when unified Germany started to threat UK world dominance as the greatest power, war among the superpowers changed from being something unthinkable to being something that was inevitable in the eyes of many, but given the absolute dependence of all the power’s economies of a world market, it was though that any war would inevitable last only a few weeks…
Then IWW came for a lame reason, and it lasted 4 years, war becoming industrialised and bringing new horrors and death in an industrial scale. It was as if all the “good things†of industrialization and advance were perverted and twisted and used for mastery and destruction. (although the author denied it all his life the similarities with the lord of the rings are quite obvious).
Although the supposedly good guys won, war had crippled Europe dominance for the first time in recorded history (IMHO) and had put an end probably for ever, to the times of la belle époque, the time of greatest optimism, progress and advance that the world has ever seen (at least for the powers but IMHO not only for them, colonies benefited a lot from the huge demands that the unquenchable thirst for raw materials and commodities the global market demanded).
Latter in the interwar years, British would advocate again that war was unthinkable, and thus force their government to reduce its army and navy. This in fact produced incontestably(IMHO) the opposite effect, making war a lot more probable than it would have been with an stronger “allied†army than the German’s one.
I recommend a good book about that…the guns of august. Also the first chapter of the book about the IWW from Keagan offers a good perspective about the high expectations and global optimism that “la belle époque†brought, and that due to some to bad leadership, to other to inevitability and to others (I subscribe to this one) too pure chance, brought on the bloodiest century of recorded history in a war that ultimately would set up all the pieces in motion for the second one, even more destructive, and for the cold war (which taking into account all the “little†wars in the third word, which were a product of the war between the superpowers now being “cold†was even bloodier than the IIWW).
I came to realise that peace is achieved only when there is an empire uncontested by any other. When that status quo (always called all the good things by the ruling empire) is threatened…(as will happen with India china and some others…) the empire that sees his uncontested ruling opposed will inevitably pursue actions that ultimately have huge chances of leading to war. The thought of a global unity or of global democracy (meaning all accepting US institutions and rules of play and ultimately subordination) is sadly but clearly utopian, and thus the idea of war becoming obsolete.
Conflict is the nature of men, and as long as that nature is not changed, that will not change despite what ideas, progress of technologies are though to be definitive on the subject (religious faith was substituted by faith in ideas and the illustrated man, and then was recently substituted by faith in technology (and still a bit in ideas that were born in the illustration) but eventually that doesn’t have any effect whatsoever as the nature of man continues unchanged, and the saying “sweet as fruit on the other guy’s orchard†continues to be as true as ever (IMHO even more than before). There is conflict because people is inherently different, has different needs and agendas…that’s why all the great utopian ideas to change the world need to be by force, and as long as there is conflict of interest there will be war, doesn’t matter how unthinkable it is to some (many immensely intelligent people tend to think the opposite like Robert D Kaplan and many others).
Its not the first time an idea like that pops out. In the late XIX early XX, a lot of extremely intelligent and competent people thought that given the fact that the economy was for the first time global, and that due to the nature of it needing (not just to grow but to maintain itself) a global market free on the most part from the intervention of the states and above all dependent on the possibility that trade is maintained between all developed countries, something that a war would obviously not allow. Due to this huge dependence upon trade for the economies, it was thought, not surprisingly, unthinkable that anyone would want to go to war, as it would bring the destruction of the whole system and thus spawn misery for all, not just the defeated countries.
Even then in the early XX century, when unified Germany started to threat UK world dominance as the greatest power, war among the superpowers changed from being something unthinkable to being something that was inevitable in the eyes of many, but given the absolute dependence of all the power’s economies of a world market, it was though that any war would inevitable last only a few weeks…
Then IWW came for a lame reason, and it lasted 4 years, war becoming industrialised and bringing new horrors and death in an industrial scale. It was as if all the “good things†of industrialization and advance were perverted and twisted and used for mastery and destruction. (although the author denied it all his life the similarities with the lord of the rings are quite obvious).
Although the supposedly good guys won, war had crippled Europe dominance for the first time in recorded history (IMHO) and had put an end probably for ever, to the times of la belle époque, the time of greatest optimism, progress and advance that the world has ever seen (at least for the powers but IMHO not only for them, colonies benefited a lot from the huge demands that the unquenchable thirst for raw materials and commodities the global market demanded).
Latter in the interwar years, British would advocate again that war was unthinkable, and thus force their government to reduce its army and navy. This in fact produced incontestably(IMHO) the opposite effect, making war a lot more probable than it would have been with an stronger “allied†army than the German’s one.
I recommend a good book about that…the guns of august. Also the first chapter of the book about the IWW from Keagan offers a good perspective about the high expectations and global optimism that “la belle époque†brought, and that due to some to bad leadership, to other to inevitability and to others (I subscribe to this one) too pure chance, brought on the bloodiest century of recorded history in a war that ultimately would set up all the pieces in motion for the second one, even more destructive, and for the cold war (which taking into account all the “little†wars in the third word, which were a product of the war between the superpowers now being “cold†was even bloodier than the IIWW).
I came to realise that peace is achieved only when there is an empire uncontested by any other. When that status quo (always called all the good things by the ruling empire) is threatened…(as will happen with India china and some others…) the empire that sees his uncontested ruling opposed will inevitably pursue actions that ultimately have huge chances of leading to war. The thought of a global unity or of global democracy (meaning all accepting US institutions and rules of play and ultimately subordination) is sadly but clearly utopian, and thus the idea of war becoming obsolete.
Conflict is the nature of men, and as long as that nature is not changed, that will not change despite what ideas, progress of technologies are though to be definitive on the subject (religious faith was substituted by faith in ideas and the illustrated man, and then was recently substituted by faith in technology (and still a bit in ideas that were born in the illustration) but eventually that doesn’t have any effect whatsoever as the nature of man continues unchanged, and the saying “sweet as fruit on the other guy’s orchard†continues to be as true as ever (IMHO even more than before). There is conflict because people is inherently different, has different needs and agendas…that’s why all the great utopian ideas to change the world need to be by force, and as long as there is conflict of interest there will be war, doesn’t matter how unthinkable it is to some (many immensely intelligent people tend to think the opposite like Robert D Kaplan and many others).
User Name: MrUnknown123
Oct 23, 2008
0
Ironically, the same was said right before WWI (a book was written on it). It wasn't true then, it isn't true now.
User Name: Kiubbo
Oct 23, 2008
+1
Scott,
War is a hell of a business for the military industry, and that is why there will always be wars.
If you like science and are not afraid of what the truth maybe I dare you to do this: watch on youtube videos of the *collapse* of the WTC on 9/11 and explain how can fire cause it to explode? Why it turns to dust? Why the second building to *collapse* starts doing it from the top (can the sky put pressure on a building so it crash itself from the top, instead of on the dent that the plane made)?
I do not know either the answer to this, but as you point out in Gods Debris: "Just because I do not know how a magician makes his tricks does not make it magic", but those buildings exploded.
Thanks for all the laughs, yesterday comic was great.
Regards,
Carlos
War is a hell of a business for the military industry, and that is why there will always be wars.
If you like science and are not afraid of what the truth maybe I dare you to do this: watch on youtube videos of the *collapse* of the WTC on 9/11 and explain how can fire cause it to explode? Why it turns to dust? Why the second building to *collapse* starts doing it from the top (can the sky put pressure on a building so it crash itself from the top, instead of on the dent that the plane made)?
I do not know either the answer to this, but as you point out in Gods Debris: "Just because I do not know how a magician makes his tricks does not make it magic", but those buildings exploded.
Thanks for all the laughs, yesterday comic was great.
Regards,
Carlos
User Name: Dog of Justice
Oct 23, 2008
+2
If only.
The Iraq War is expensive mostly because we refuse to be ruthless and just kill indiscriminately. I don't think any other major belligerent in history has ever tried as hard as we have to spare civilians, etc.
Now, this is a good thing. But some other countries/organizations/whatever aren't so self-restrained. They're really only kept in line because they're militarily weaker than us so they can't ignore our opinion. And if our opinion is "we don't really care" (which often seems to be true in Africa, at least), naked brutality can still reign today.
The Iraq War is expensive mostly because we refuse to be ruthless and just kill indiscriminately. I don't think any other major belligerent in history has ever tried as hard as we have to spare civilians, etc.
Now, this is a good thing. But some other countries/organizations/whatever aren't so self-restrained. They're really only kept in line because they're militarily weaker than us so they can't ignore our opinion. And if our opinion is "we don't really care" (which often seems to be true in Africa, at least), naked brutality can still reign today.
User Name: spacer
Oct 23, 2008
-1
Mr. Adams,
I came across a news article about new solar panel technology that I thought you'd be interested in, since it relates (however loosely) to today's blog.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39807/113/
I came across a news article about new solar panel technology that I thought you'd be interested in, since it relates (however loosely) to today's blog.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39807/113/
User Name: KarlNieb
Oct 23, 2008
+1
The age of war will be past when ignorance is past.
Wars aren't usually fought on logic, are they?
Wars aren't usually fought on logic, are they?
