3 ms·

those 2 things are pretty heavily correlated. guns and ammo, military rations manufacturers, and yes creators of technology that support military operations hav

those 2 things are pretty heavily correlated. guns and ammo, military rations manufacturers, and yes creators of technology that support military operations have a huge economic incentive for war the more war you create, the larger the military, and get larger their ability to spent on “protection” and “defence” *edit: which is certainly offset pretty substantially by the hit to the countries GDP, because yknow... war is expensive!

AmericanChopper 8y ago
There is no logic to your argument here at all. You’re saying that every company that supplies anything to the military is automatically wielding an unethical influence to create war on false pretences. I think you can certainly find examples where commercial entities have played a suspicious role in that respect, but to say that simply by supplying goods or services to the military you are war mongering is completely devoid of logic.
- krageon 8y ago
  He is saying that any company that supplies to a military has an economic incentive to make sure war happens. Seeing as they profit from the size of the military, that's not exactly far-fetched.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    He’s making an enormous and baseless jump that any company that supplies the military must also be involved corruption and unethical war mongering. Just because an economic insentive exists, doesn’t mean people will exploit it. That’s just as senseless as saying that I’m probably a drug dealer because there’s an economic insentive for me to be. Aside from the complete lack of logic in this claim, it also doesn’t even make sense, since the military gets a budget every year, regardless of whether there’s a war to fight.
    - krageon 8y ago
      A company has only one feedback point in the long run (people leave or die over that timeframe, so you can only count on the lowest common denominator there) and that is money. If that doesn't tell you something about a company's core motivation, then I'm afraid I can't make clear to you why counting on anything but economic incentives as motivation for a company's actions is naive at best.
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        You’re argument is that every company _must_ be involved in corruption and law breaking, simply because there is profit to be found in doing so. This isn’t simply naive, it has no basis in reality whatsoever.
        krageon 8y ago
        I have literally never encountered a large company that doesn't have good tax deals in some country or other. Good in the order of "pays basically no taxes". What do you want to call that? "Just good business"?
    - cwkoss 8y ago
      > Just because an economic insentive exists, doesn’t mean people will exploit it. I think that this statement has been proven wrong countless times throughout history.
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        History has proven that every company in the world will always exploit every possible opportunity to make a profit now matter how corrupt or illegal it is? I don’t think history has proven that at all, and I don’t think you actually believe that.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

There is no logic to your argument here at all. You’re saying that every company that supplies anything to the military is automatically wielding an unethical influence to create war on false pretences. I think you can certainly find examples where commercial entities have played a suspicious role in that respect, but to say that simply by supplying goods or services to the military you are war mongering is completely devoid of logic.

krageon 8y ago
He is saying that any company that supplies to a military has an economic incentive to make sure war happens. Seeing as they profit from the size of the military, that's not exactly far-fetched.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  He’s making an enormous and baseless jump that any company that supplies the military must also be involved corruption and unethical war mongering. Just because an economic insentive exists, doesn’t mean people will exploit it. That’s just as senseless as saying that I’m probably a drug dealer because there’s an economic insentive for me to be. Aside from the complete lack of logic in this claim, it also doesn’t even make sense, since the military gets a budget every year, regardless of whether there’s a war to fight.
  - krageon 8y ago
    A company has only one feedback point in the long run (people leave or die over that timeframe, so you can only count on the lowest common denominator there) and that is money. If that doesn't tell you something about a company's core motivation, then I'm afraid I can't make clear to you why counting on anything but economic incentives as motivation for a company's actions is naive at best.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      You’re argument is that every company _must_ be involved in corruption and law breaking, simply because there is profit to be found in doing so. This isn’t simply naive, it has no basis in reality whatsoever.
      - krageon 8y ago
        I have literally never encountered a large company that doesn't have good tax deals in some country or other. Good in the order of "pays basically no taxes". What do you want to call that? "Just good business"?
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    > Just because an economic insentive exists, doesn’t mean people will exploit it. I think that this statement has been proven wrong countless times throughout history.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      History has proven that every company in the world will always exploit every possible opportunity to make a profit now matter how corrupt or illegal it is? I don’t think history has proven that at all, and I don’t think you actually believe that.