3 ms·

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-jo

by 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.

by Jedi72 7y ago

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.