4 ms·

The US wasted trillions on warfare period -- they could have just not spent it, and either not run up the debt or left that money in private hands.

donaldknuth123 8y ago
Oh it went to private hands. Hands that owned stock in Halliburton, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin etc...
- celim307 8y ago
  Dick Cheney is a traitor and has exploited the American people, and murdered countless Iraqi and Afghan lives for personal gain.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    And a really dangerous person to go hunting with. George W Bush had exceptionally terrible taste when it came to his cabinet.
    - fmajid 8y ago
      His father had warned him about Cheney and Rumsfeld,that they would stab him in the back, but he chose to ignore that advice to show his independence:
baby 8y ago
I mean, it'd be good if we got good public transports and more help for homeless people. Maybe healthcare and free education as well. What the hell.
EGreg 8y ago
Although I totally agree we shouldn't have spent trillions on war, I have a question about this whole "our country spent on X rather than Y" Most of the money CIRCULATES in a country. So it's not like it's one shot and done. The money was paid to some people who then spent it back into the economy and it went round and round. So at most we diverted a certain number of hops of a huge amount of money to a thing. I look at money as sort of wheels with cogs turning at a certain speed. When you launch some new project, it might pick up momentum by having other cogs spin it up. It can even "grow" in market cap depending on whether increased demand for it drives up the prices for it. But that price can also drop to zero later, as new things come out, eliminating vast swaths of "wealth" in a stock or cryptocurrency or whatever. So back to my question... money isn't just a one-time resource that a country can spend and can never get back. However, from the point of view of a government, they only get so much revenue per year, so it should be said about the US government and not the country as a whole. The government taxes and diverts money to things that individuals would not do on their own. Fiat currencies allow further powers to print money — before WW2 pundits thought that military activities on such scale were simply not possible to be funded with taxes etc. Everywhere in the world I go, I see the vast majority of people are regular folks who just want to put food on the table and laugh with their family. It’s the governments and media that whips up all this warfare and propaganda and we wind up paying for it, and people on the other side of the world wind up dying as a result. That’s what the tragedy is. The money paid to eg Blackwater mercenaries or the rest of the military industrial complex probably found its way back to the US economy in short order.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  But just saying money is still circulating is very short sighted. Is the velocity is the money the same? Is it circulating among rich or poor? Taxation is normally for taking money from the rich and spending on the poor. In this case however, money was taken from the middle and lower working classes, and given to the rich stock owners. And the country got nothing in return, not bridges, trains, or roads. If you give rich people tax breaks and they spend it purchasing and bubbling real estate, your gdp might show good numbers, but money is just circulating among the rich.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    The velocity of money returns to normal after it is spent into the private sector again. It’s just one hop for how it is spent. In the meantime the taxed money may be held in some funds, and those funds may be invested in private banks. We really don’t know. The Grace Commission found that hardly anything from personal income taxes even reaches public works. There is hardly any difference if the government burned all your tax money with their left hand (fiscal policy) and printed shiny new money with their right hand (monetary policy). My point is that the money keeps circulating. Isn’t it short sighted the other way, to act as if it disappeared? Circulating among rich or poor is a different question - of outsorcing, automation, demand for human labor and services, UBI and so on - rather than spending it on the armed forces. Poor people get paid in the armed forces and go spend that money into the economy too. It’s apples and oranges. I’m saying the tragedy is the bombing and destruction, the money found its way back into the economy.
    - rohit2412 8y ago
      I don't think the velocity of money returns to normal. Money used to buy a single Ferrari probably circulates less than money used to buy million gallons of milk. This should imply that for higher gdp we must tax the rich and spend on poor. American defense spending spends lesser on the poor, and the country does not even get bridges or trains in return.
      - 8y ago

donaldknuth123 8y ago

Oh it went to private hands. Hands that owned stock in Halliburton, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin etc...

celim307 8y ago
Dick Cheney is a traitor and has exploited the American people, and murdered countless Iraqi and Afghan lives for personal gain.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  And a really dangerous person to go hunting with. George W Bush had exceptionally terrible taste when it came to his cabinet.
  - fmajid 8y ago
    His father had warned him about Cheney and Rumsfeld,that they would stab him in the back, but he chose to ignore that advice to show his independence:

baby 8y ago

I mean, it'd be good if we got good public transports and more help for homeless people. Maybe healthcare and free education as well. What the hell.

EGreg 8y ago

Although I totally agree we shouldn't have spent trillions on war, I have a question about this whole "our country spent on X rather than Y" Most of the money CIRCULATES in a country. So it's not like it's one shot and done. The money was paid to some people who then spent it back into the economy and it went round and round. So at most we diverted a certain number of hops of a huge amount of money to a thing. I look at money as sort of wheels with cogs turning at a certain speed. When you launch some new project, it might pick up momentum by having other cogs spin it up. It can even "grow" in market cap depending on whether increased demand for it drives up the prices for it. But that price can also drop to zero later, as new things come out, eliminating vast swaths of "wealth" in a stock or cryptocurrency or whatever. So back to my question... money isn't just a one-time resource that a country can spend and can never get back. However, from the point of view of a government, they only get so much revenue per year, so it should be said about the US government and not the country as a whole. The government taxes and diverts money to things that individuals would not do on their own. Fiat currencies allow further powers to print money — before WW2 pundits thought that military activities on such scale were simply not possible to be funded with taxes etc. Everywhere in the world I go, I see the vast majority of people are regular folks who just want to put food on the table and laugh with their family. It’s the governments and media that whips up all this warfare and propaganda and we wind up paying for it, and people on the other side of the world wind up dying as a result. That’s what the tragedy is. The money paid to eg Blackwater mercenaries or the rest of the military industrial complex probably found its way back to the US economy in short order.

rohit2412 8y ago
But just saying money is still circulating is very short sighted. Is the velocity is the money the same? Is it circulating among rich or poor? Taxation is normally for taking money from the rich and spending on the poor. In this case however, money was taken from the middle and lower working classes, and given to the rich stock owners. And the country got nothing in return, not bridges, trains, or roads. If you give rich people tax breaks and they spend it purchasing and bubbling real estate, your gdp might show good numbers, but money is just circulating among the rich.
- EGreg 8y ago
  The velocity of money returns to normal after it is spent into the private sector again. It’s just one hop for how it is spent. In the meantime the taxed money may be held in some funds, and those funds may be invested in private banks. We really don’t know. The Grace Commission found that hardly anything from personal income taxes even reaches public works. There is hardly any difference if the government burned all your tax money with their left hand (fiscal policy) and printed shiny new money with their right hand (monetary policy). My point is that the money keeps circulating. Isn’t it short sighted the other way, to act as if it disappeared? Circulating among rich or poor is a different question - of outsorcing, automation, demand for human labor and services, UBI and so on - rather than spending it on the armed forces. Poor people get paid in the armed forces and go spend that money into the economy too. It’s apples and oranges. I’m saying the tragedy is the bombing and destruction, the money found its way back into the economy.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    I don't think the velocity of money returns to normal. Money used to buy a single Ferrari probably circulates less than money used to buy million gallons of milk. This should imply that for higher gdp we must tax the rich and spend on poor. American defense spending spends lesser on the poor, and the country does not even get bridges or trains in return.
    - 8y ago