4 ms·
I 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 th
by megaduck 17y ago
I 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.