War good for the US economy?

[DeletedUser]

Some one once told me that war brings the bull. There was a time when that was true. Steel mills and factories would start to turn out the war machine, but is that the case today. Today raw materials are made in places like China and even though the parts of classified products are usually assembled in the USA, the costs of war far out weighs the small boosts there. That coupled with the rebuilding the losing country rather than capturing of resources of that country means wars are much more costly to the economy while funneling tax dollars to competing nations.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well its good for large companies, war, oil and building industry profits greatly from US wars, probably many other sectors too.
You are right when you say that costs more than it brings back but costs are payed by people and profit is taken by large private companies. Privatized profit, socialized debt.

Thats my point of view, if you think i'm wrong please correct me.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well its good for large companies, war, oil and building industry profits greatly from US wars, probably many other sectors too.
You are right when you say that costs more than it brings back but costs are payed by people and profit is taken by large private companies. Privatized profit, socialized debt.

Thats my point of view, if you think i'm wrong please correct me.

Yes but these companies are globalized. They do not strictly belong to the USA. The same goes for the wealthy few. They spend their money where ever they like, usually some tropical island. These are the same people who have the most influence over US policy though lobbying. IMO they will squeeze the US for all it's worth then find another country to squeeze once the gravy train runs out.

 

[Diggo11]

War generally hasn't been profitable since 1914 - the cost of modern arms simply outweighs the value of the spoils (if any) taken from the defeated countries. The only possible exception is oil from Middle Eastern countries, but that is predicted to run out in fifty years time anyway. Aside from self protection there will soon be no direct financial reason for any country to maintain a sizable armed forces.

 

[DeletedUser]

War generally hasn't been profitable since 1914 - the cost of modern arms simply outweighs the value of the spoils (if any) taken from the defeated countries. The only possible exception is oil from Middle Eastern countries, but that is predicted to run out in fifty years time anyway. Aside from self protection there will soon be no direct financial reason for any country to maintain a sizable armed forces.

Well its not profitable for the country but its more than profitable for companies, which as WillyPete said has a lot of influence on policy.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Youll notice a lot of the war areas are where the markets havnt been opened up for certain corps... then after they have a foothold it paves the way for others ...

Its a complicated web but bottom line is its very very profitable for all kinds of business.. Especially investment, and arms dealing, construction, infrastructure and political influence... yea war is still very profitable for those that support it... the profits are reaped by the big business that lobby and have an agenda, as anarchy says the people pay and the social cost is massive...

Its also unsustainable but thats never stopped them making a fast buck

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Maybe your looking at the wrong wars here, i mean a war involving the US is probable unprofitable where corporations are concerned but what about in Africa?
You supply the combatants with cold war weapons and then either through the use of a corporate army (AKA Mercenaries) or lawyers take control of whatever natural resources they have such as diamonds and oil which you can then in turn sell for a hefty profit.
Theres no casualties (Or very minimal) incurred by the corporation so you're not having to pay large pentions and medical bills, you've no government or voters to answer to and all the money is flowing in only one direction

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Ummmmm A war involving the US is the only thing that has kept them where they are ... why do you think the UK is at so much ? id love to say different but people really have no idea whats going on behind the scenes... if they did they would string the lot of them up from the highest rafter.

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe your looking at the wrong wars here, i mean a war involving the US is probable unprofitable where corporations are concerned but what about in Africa?
You supply the combatants with cold war weapons and then either through the use of a corporate army (AKA Mercenaries) or lawyers take control of whatever natural resources they have such as diamonds and oil which you can then in turn sell for a hefty profit.
Theres no casualties (Or very minimal) incurred by the corporation so you're not having to pay large pentions and medical bills, you've no government or voters to answer to and all the money is flowing in only one direction

I agree there is defiantly profit to be had in war but that is not really good for economy. Economy is the hiring of the masses and investing in more business. Its is not making very few ppl rich and them retiring with a horde of profits safe'd away in some private island.

 

[DeletedUser]

At present, under the status quo of how the markets and politicians are manipulated by the wealthy, there really isn't anything that is good for the economy, except perhaps proper regulation and reasoned government intervention. As to the military industrial complex, they're presently under siege, but unfortunately they don't fight fair...

 

[DeletedUser]

At present, under the status quo of how the markets and politicians are manipulated by the wealthy, there really isn't anything that is good for the economy, except perhaps proper regulation and reasoned government intervention. As to the military industrial complex, they're presently under siege, but unfortunately they don't fight fair...

Yes that's true, If you question them about why do you have to invade this country or why are you spending so much, they just accuse you have not being patriotic. "Don't you support the troops?" How about we support them by keeping them alive and out of profiteering unnecessary war.

 

[DeletedUser]

Darn what's wrong with debate nowadays? Where are all the large posts filled with a bazillion quotes being attacked. Oh well, I'll fix that....

Ummmmm A war involving the US is the only thing that has kept them where they are ... why do you think the UK is at so much ? id love to say different but people really have no idea whats going on behind the scenes... if they did they would string the lot of them up from the highest rafter.

Yay! Still the same old Kruger I see. Now mind being a little more precise? I don't seem to understand how the threat of war with the US is holding smaller nations back (unless you're Iran but that happens when you have nukes and significantly larger nations don't want you to have them). And if I understand correctly you also are saying the UK is declaring war left and right to keep small countries down, I would also like some examples there.

Some one once told me that war brings the bull. There was a time when that was true. Steel mills and factories would start to turn out the war machine, but is that the case today. Today raw materials are made in places like China and even though the parts of classified products are usually assembled in the USA, the costs of war far out weighs the small boosts there. That coupled with the rebuilding the losing country rather than capturing of resources of that country means wars are much more costly to the economy while funneling tax dollars to competing nations.

War brings the bull, in a way this statement never was true. Economically I almost want to say you can divide wars in the US into two eras. With the dividing line being World War 2. 1941-45 is probably the only time where we could say war was fueling the economy, since you watched the amazing rise in the US from a nation wracked by depression to a Fascist clubbing super power. Previously you had a US that was always advancing rapidly economically no matter who was shooting whom. After WWII growth wasn't as rapid and it doesn't seem like it ever spiked during wartime. If you ask me the idea war was ever an economic boon in the US is simply a myth.

Well its good for large companies, war, oil and building industry profits greatly from US wars, probably many other sectors too.
You are right when you say that costs more than it brings back but costs are payed by people and profit is taken by large private companies. Privatized profit, socialized debt.

Thats my point of view, if you think i'm wrong please correct me.

I would like some specifics about crazy profits being made out of US wars that doesn't involve citing a handful of war profiteers or the WWII economy. I also think it's odd that you think the building industry gets a great deal of benefit from warfare when the option of profit from rebuilding war's destruction hasn't been viable since the 1860s. If you don't happen to know wars rarely involve battles on US soil currently. Costs are paid by people... Hmmm, don't forget the corporations and other companies that also pay taxes through the nose to support warefare and its hardware. And what is socialized debt then? Does that mean any company that makes a profit automatically owes society money?

At present, under the status quo of how the markets and politicians are manipulated by the wealthy, there really isn't anything that is good for the economy, except perhaps proper regulation and reasoned government intervention. As to the military industrial complex, they're presently under siege, but unfortunately they don't fight fair...

Correction Hellstromm. It is the rich who manipulate the politicians who then manipulate the markets. And not all the wealthy folks play that way it should be noted. (And I could go on and probably be more specific. I think that entire argument oughta launch another thread)

Well that's enough flak for one night. Eat up boys cause tomorrow I'll be bringing a new course when you respond.

 

[DeletedUser]

I would like some specifics about crazy profits being made out of US wars that doesn't involve citing a handful of war profiteers or the WWII economy.

Let me answer this part aimed at me although whole post is pointless and fits into category: "How come that cow that eats green grass gives white milk".

All right, after the war is over who gets the contracts of oil extraction, who gets the jobs of rebuilding destroyed countries? Who gets massive piece of already massive US military budget before the war starts? Let me throw few names at you since thats what you're asking: Bechtel, KBR, Blackwater, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics.

I also think it's odd that you think the building industry gets a great deal of benefit from warfare when the option of profit from rebuilding war's destruction hasn't been viable since the 1860s. If you don't happen to know wars rarely involve battles on US soil currently.

Why is it odd? Why is not viable? Those costs are payed by invaded country (delegated by marionette government you installed)

Costs are paid by people... Hmmm, don't forget the corporations and other companies that also pay taxes through the nose to support warefare and its hardware. And what is socialized debt then? Does that mean any company that makes a profit automatically owes society money?

So lets see everyone pays taxes, rich people proportionally pay less than poor people.
For their tax dollar rich people and corporations mold the US foreign policy and get massive profits out of pointless wars. And also are given taxpayers money to cover their crappy business decisions.
On the other hand poor people for their tax dollars are called communists and unpatriotic because they can get to doctor when they're sick.
What is amazing that it is socially unacceptable to complain about billions spent on army, while public healthcare system is fair game, and is presented as root of all evil.

As for your question what is socialized debt, let me say it this way: all of the wars, bailing of the banks, everything is payed by the taxpayers money for sole purpose of enabling extreme profits for small group of people.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

LJ

OP post was is war still profitable.

A yup without question it is, I see no point in arguing the subject, none of the main wars in the past 40 years with the exception of maybe bosnia on intervention has been anything other than a playground profit arena ... anarchy sets it out you may argue with him ive done this one on a number of occasions on various forums and frankly you either suck in the propaganda bs or you dont .... i dont.

Heres an example

The UK’s bill for its part in the NATO intervention in Libya is estimated at just under US $500 million. According to the UK Department of Trade and Investment, the value of contracts to rebuild Libya, in areas ranging from electricity and water supplies to healthcare and education, could amount to upwards of US $300 billion over the next 10 years. And the British government will make sure it takes a leading role in that, just as it did in the war, and thats not even including the petroleum profits.

Thats a pretty cool investment don't you think ? shame its bathed in blood.

 

[DeletedUser]

In many respects, wars are a means for private enterprises to suck the coffers dry of government treasuries. Yes, it's profitable... just not to a government, and not beneficial to the greater populace.

 

[DeletedUser]

The whole thing is a myth (Broken Window Fallacy).

WWII did help end the Great Depression, but the taxpayers paid for it all with tax increases and buying war bonds. The funds needed didn't just magically appear.

Current tax burdens are now much higher than they were before the War, so raising taxes today would be much more difficult. The "Victory Tax" of 1942 sharply raised income tax rates and allowed, for the first time in our nation's history, taxes to be withheld directly from paychecks. The hikes were originally intended to be temporary but have, of course, far outlasted their purpose. It would be unlikely that Americans would accept higher taxes today to fund a real war, let alone a pretend one.

That leaves savings, which was the War's primary source of funding. During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941—1945. Today, we don't have the savings to pay for our current spending, let alone any significant expansions. Even if we could convince the Chinese to loan us a large chunk of the $20 trillion (on top of the $1 trillion we already owe them), how could we ever pay them back? [$20 trillion represents the six-fold increase in the federal budget during WWII]

http://www.libertariantoday.com/2010/07/keynesian-myth-wwii-government-spending.html

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Myth as in what E ?

That its bad for the people or that its good for big business ? sure the people suffer, taxes economic troubles but business is booming ....

 

[DeletedUser]

Myth as in what E ?

That its bad for the people or that its good for big business ? sure the people suffer, taxes economic troubles but business is booming ....

The economy isn't just big business. Somehow I don't see increasing the federal budget 600% and using the extra revenue to subsidize big business as a great economic strategy.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

The economy isn't just big business. Somehow I don't see increasing the federal budget 600% and using the extra revenue to subsidize big business as a great economic strategy.

Couldn't agree with you more there, problem is and lets be honest here 600% 700 1000 they just keep right on pumping it up... big business dosnt give a damn about the economy they have profits & they dont pay the bill .. you do... so they dont give a damn. Also war is a great distractor when the economy is in big trouble... theres a simple rule that the coffers get thrown wide open when wars on the table... no one ever came home cos they ran out of money in the middle of a war. Nice bit of flag waving and propaganda to keep the people interested keep them asleep and in the meantime do whatever youve been trying to squeeze into law, or abolish people are far more likely to agree to it under times of war.

Certain private business thrives on the prospect and use of war E you must know that, and private business pulls the strings of the politicians like it or not thats the way it is.

 

[DeletedUser]

Agreed Elmyr, wars are not economically, nationally, internationally, or individually beneficial, they are independently beneficial. Only a few prosper from the advent, and products, of war. Agreed Victor, wars are often an effective means to bring attention elsewhere and away from ill-managed nation governance.