3 ms·

If violent conflict or the threat of such is one of the unspoken means of creating artificial demand that props up parts of ones economy this should not come as

by srean 7y ago

If violent conflict or the threat of such is one of the unspoken means of creating artificial demand that props up parts of ones economy this should not come as a surprise. 'Soldiers' are low level resources to be turned over into a different kind of wealth. Sooner the realization dawns the better for those who are left behind with the shorter end of the stick, with or without some shiny pieces of metal.

Jedi72 7y ago
I have similar thoughts but state them rather more bluntly, that the US military is 20%~ a program for national defence and 80%~ a socially acceptable public-jobs program in a society which is phobic of "socialism" but nevertheless needs wealth-redistribution in the economically productive forms of education and life-experience/connections for those involved in order to thrive on the macro level.
- deogeo 7y ago
  It's wealth redistribution all right, but it distributes wealth to the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
  - mat4magic 7y ago
    Yes selling weapons is profitable. But if your own country is at war with an equally strong opponent, then its not. Economy is in shambles for both players no matter who wins. Also tax rates during war time are really high. Wars and other catastrophes are equalizing wealth distribution and are not distributing wealth to the top. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...
    - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
      History shows that many people made rich by war were able to buy their way into a neutral country and live safely. Borders do not apply to very rich people.
      - mat4magic 7y ago
        You are right about the person itself. But their assets are often hard to move. I just dont think that rich people in general have an interest in a (serious) war. I rather think conflicts are used to distract from other problems and create "unity". But not with the goal to make money. Obviously some peope will try to profit from it while its going on and some will also lobby for new ones. I just dont thinks that this influence is that big
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > an equally strong opponent describes a small fraction of the conflicts the US was involved in in the last 100 years.
      - mat4magic 7y ago
        True enough, but that fraction has the biggest impact though.
roenxi 7y ago
When thinking about the benefits of the military it is appropriate to ponder the broken window fallacy [0]. Economically speaking, building a rocket and blowing up a foreigner is strictly worse than paying everyone in the economic chain the same amount of money and using the raw physical resources of the rocket to do something else. So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor. The opportunity cost of the military is huge. Artificial violent conflict/threat thereof doesn't prop up anything on its own, the military doesn't generate wealth in and of itself. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  "rational" "securing access to ... resources" "opportunity cost" All this phrasing hints that human beings are, or should be, purely rational and profit-driven robots without any social, ethical or moral value. There's a word for this: sociopathy.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Is there any evidence that the people who make decisions that involve thousands, if not millions, of purposeful deaths are not sociopaths? At that scale the people who don't think in sociopathic terms will struggle to make decisions. How does someone purposefully cause even 1 death while reflecting on the general wonder of life? They'd have to be stupid. Anyone who wasn't thinking in sociopathic terms would have to choose 'more negotiation' and 'do without' over military engagement. And that isn't what happens in practice.
    - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
      Huh?
- srean 7y ago
  It is indeed worth pondering over, sooner we start the better. Its also a complicated affair: there is the aspect of distribution of taxes to cronies, there is creation of artificial demand, there externalities like people subsidizing the war by putting their own wellbeing on the line, may be for a shot at citizenship - thanks to selective service and poverty draft

by srean 7y ago

Jedi72 7y ago

I have similar thoughts but state them rather more bluntly, that the US military is 20%~ a program for national defence and 80%~ a socially acceptable public-jobs program in a society which is phobic of "socialism" but nevertheless needs wealth-redistribution in the economically productive forms of education and life-experience/connections for those involved in order to thrive on the macro level.

deogeo 7y ago
It's wealth redistribution all right, but it distributes wealth to the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
- mat4magic 7y ago
  Yes selling weapons is profitable. But if your own country is at war with an equally strong opponent, then its not. Economy is in shambles for both players no matter who wins. Also tax rates during war time are really high. Wars and other catastrophes are equalizing wealth distribution and are not distributing wealth to the top. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    History shows that many people made rich by war were able to buy their way into a neutral country and live safely. Borders do not apply to very rich people.
    - mat4magic 7y ago
      You are right about the person itself. But their assets are often hard to move. I just dont think that rich people in general have an interest in a (serious) war. I rather think conflicts are used to distract from other problems and create "unity". But not with the goal to make money. Obviously some peope will try to profit from it while its going on and some will also lobby for new ones. I just dont thinks that this influence is that big
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > an equally strong opponent describes a small fraction of the conflicts the US was involved in in the last 100 years.
    - mat4magic 7y ago
      True enough, but that fraction has the biggest impact though.

roenxi 7y ago

When thinking about the benefits of the military it is appropriate to ponder the broken window fallacy [0]. Economically speaking, building a rocket and blowing up a foreigner is strictly worse than paying everyone in the economic chain the same amount of money and using the raw physical resources of the rocket to do something else. So for military action to be rational the troops need to be securing access to foreign wealth/raw resources, or dealing with a somewhat imminent threat from people who want to break and steal stuff from the military's sponsor. The opportunity cost of the military is huge. Artificial violent conflict/threat thereof doesn't prop up anything on its own, the military doesn't generate wealth in and of itself. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
"rational" "securing access to ... resources" "opportunity cost" All this phrasing hints that human beings are, or should be, purely rational and profit-driven robots without any social, ethical or moral value. There's a word for this: sociopathy.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Is there any evidence that the people who make decisions that involve thousands, if not millions, of purposeful deaths are not sociopaths? At that scale the people who don't think in sociopathic terms will struggle to make decisions. How does someone purposefully cause even 1 death while reflecting on the general wonder of life? They'd have to be stupid. Anyone who wasn't thinking in sociopathic terms would have to choose 'more negotiation' and 'do without' over military engagement. And that isn't what happens in practice.
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    Huh?
srean 7y ago
It is indeed worth pondering over, sooner we start the better. Its also a complicated affair: there is the aspect of distribution of taxes to cronies, there is creation of artificial demand, there externalities like people subsidizing the war by putting their own wellbeing on the line, may be for a shot at citizenship - thanks to selective service and poverty draft