3 ms·
I didn't watch all the videos, but I didn't see anything about War. It seems to me that if you read between the lines that the next 20 years wont be like the l
by Roridge 17y ago
I didn't watch all the videos, but I didn't see anything about War.
It seems to me that if you read between the lines that the next 20 years wont be like the last 20 years because there will be no War.
Sadly I think we need to overcome the small human need to destroy each other before we need to worry about almost everything in this blog post.
- heresy 17y agoThe video on inflation covers how war has significant inflationary effects, but obviously focuses on the economics and not the morality of it.
- Roridge 17y agoI was thinking on how Wars fund many technological break thoughts and more often improves the economy. Where would the internet be without War? DARPA anyone? If there were no war in the world tomorrow, millions would go out of work.
- megaduck 17y agoI'm sorry, this is a dangerous and wrong line of thinking. War's primary purpose is to destroy economic output. You win by eliminating your opponent's ability to produce the goods and services that enable them to engage you. You are correct that world peace would result in massive layoffs. However, those millions of newly unemployed people would now be free to do other, more productive work. World peace would be the most beautiful and perfect example of creative destruction in the history of economics.
- Roridge 17y agoI am not claiming it's the right way to think. I am pointing out realistic facts. Your assumption that these people would be free to do other more productive works is counter-intuitive, as you are assuming that people who fight Wars want to do something else. My original observation still stands, that the blog context appears to disregard the positive influence that war has on economy as well as the negative.
- megaduck 17y agoI think you misunderstand me. If war was eliminated, people who fight wars would have to do something else, regardless of their feelings on the issue. That thing would necessarily be more economically productive, because war is a net drag on the global economy. If you wish to debate this, then you'll need to prove that in aggregate, war is economically productive. That's a difficult argument to make, and likely to be empirically false. For a more robust explanation, check out the "parable of the broken window": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- Roridge 17y agoI am not sure my intent was to debate it per se, but to identify with my personal opinion in relation to yours. However, from where I stand the cold war spurned on the space race, millions was spent by either side on the space race. Technology and the economy surrounding it grew as a result. Perhaps that is not true?
- crpatino 17y agoIf I recall well the argument, the whole point about war is that it serves as a counterbalance against the problems that perpetual growth brings. It is never truth that the war is economically productive. But the destruction of capital that comes as a side effect of war keeps inflation on check (monetary inflation defined as money growing faster than the tangible economic output; not price inflation, which is one result of the former). Besides that, while it might be a net negative economic event, War puts lots of public money in some chosen private pockets. So there are always people lobbying to get into conflict in a perfectly rational way.