5 ms·

One big problem I see with this: in time of war, it is often not only necessary but desireable to run a deficit. Imagine if we had been forced to run a balanced

One big problem I see with this: in time of war, it is often not only necessary but desireable to run a deficit. Imagine if we had been forced to run a balanced budget during WWII! I would imagine that in such dire need, members of congress would "take one for the team" and run a deficit in order to sustain the war effort, but then you have the classic "changing horses mid-stream" problem when you turn over literally the entire legislature in the middle of a war. I think that a much more practical constitutional amendment would be to simply prohibit congress from appropriating funds in excess of revenues unless a war has been declared. There is a risk of congress declaring needless wars for the sole purpose of justifying deficits, but that would require the cooperation of both parties, and I would bet that the opposition party would see more potential gain in opposing the war and demagouging its supportors than in letting the majority party have their war of convenience.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
rsbrown 15y ago
The war argument for deficit spending has completely lost credibility with me. It may have been true for WWII, but this argument has been sorely abused in order to justify out of control spending during the various armed conflicts since then. Leaving war as a loophole for runaway deficit spending is a slippery slope, and one that congress clearly has no reluctance sliding down.
code_duck 15y ago
When have we not been 'at war' in the past 40 years?
- WalterSear 15y ago
  We have not been at war with Eurasia for the past 40 years. We have always not been at war with Eurasia.
pgsucksdick 15y ago
As much as you might like to think differently war is always negatively productive. There might be some corner cases where the destroyed wealth is replaced by more efficient use, but they have yet to demonstrate themselves.
- Dove 15y ago
  Oh, I don't know. I think it can be a positive thing for a nation to not get conquered.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    I think the parent is talking just about economics. There are very few post-industrial-revolution examples of nations benefiting economically from war. America in WWII is the most notable exception in my mind.
    - Dove 15y ago
      In spite of my flippant tone, I had a serious point too: fighting a war may always come with an economic cost, but losing one can come a much higher cost. Hence, fighting a war can be a positive choice even if you lose money doing it.
      - lucasjung 15y ago
        That's really interesting. To put it another way, economic opportunity costs apply to armed conflict. You can even extend this beyond purely defensive wars. The most obvious extension is pre-emptive wars. A great example would be the Six Days war (aka the 1967 Arab-Israeli war). Israel knew that they were about to be attacked (the massed units on their borders were not subtle), and instead attacked preemptively. Arguably, this reduced the cost of the war for them in a number of ways. First, by seizing the initiative and the element of surprise, they likely reduced their combat losses relative to what they would have experienced if they had waited for their neighbors to attack. Even more importantly, the entire war was fought outside of their then-borders, so their infrastructure was not damaged by the fighting. Clausewitz even makes a case for starting a war that you know you are going to lose. That sounds crazy at first, but in some scenarios it makes sense, because it's not just about the balance of power, it's about the direction in which that balance is shifting. If you are highly certain that another country is going to attack you, and that you will lose, you have to consider whether your defeat would be more or less severe in six months or a year. If the balance of power is shifting in your favor, you want to postpone hostilities as long as possible. If, on the other hand, the balance of power is shifting in favor of your enemy, you want to precipitate a war as soon as possible in the hopes of securing a better position to sue for peace. Either way you know you're going to lose, it's a question of how badly you are going to lose. Finally, even a war of naked aggression could have a nearly immediate net positive impact on your economy if your forces are so superior that you will suffer minimal losses, and if you capture valuable resources as a result, or if you secure tactically valuable terrain that reduces your losses in an impending conflict. The German annexation of the Sudetenland is a prime example of this.
johngalt 15y ago
The next headline would be "permanent war declared against Oilistan" and war spending is never a boondoggle. Governments always use a crisis to grow their power.
pmichaud 15y ago
I'm not sure of the exact dates we've been at war since WW2, but I just checked and saw that we've been engaged in armed conflict continuously since at least before I was born. I don't think that rule would really work. "No, I mean a REAL war..." Yeah.
- lmkg 15y ago
  Actually "a REAL war" is a meaningful distinction because the term "war" is defined in the Constitution, so it can't be fudged without an amendment. It's only a war if Congress formally declares war on another country, and that hasn't happened since WWII.
  - borism 15y ago
    The Constitution A noble piece of paper With free society Struggled but it died in vain And now Democracy is ragtime on the corner Hoping for some rain Looks like it's hoping Hoping for some rain
  - DavidAdams 15y ago
    The issue here is that old-fashioned declared war is essentially illegal under the current regime of international law. Because you have to get a security council resolution or be clearly in self-defense these days to engage in armed conflict and not become an international outlaw, all of the "wars" we've engaged in since the 1940s have been "police actions" or "interventions" or somesuch.
    - lucasjung 15y ago
      Personally, I think it's a good thing that the bar is high for "old-fashioned declared war," especially if it is a constitutional prerequisite to deficit spending. IANAL, but my career requires me to be very familiar with certain aspects of international law because I sometimes deal with them in a very direct and pragmatic manner. I probably know more about international law than your average domestic lawyer (but certainly much less than a lawyer who actually specializes in international law!). Almost all international law falls into one of two categories: treaties and precedent. Precedent is huge: if you can enforce an otherwise illegal claim for long enough, it becomes established international law. That's why the U.S. military engages in freedom of navigation operations, to prevent excessive claims to territorial waters and airspace from becoming established precedent. Likewise, if you fail to enforce your sovereign rights as a nation, you eventually establish a precedent that those rights are no longer yours, much like copyright enforcement. In short, if other nations let you get away with something for long enough, it literally becomes legitimate. The UN is based on treaties, as are most of the laws of war. The thing about treaties is that breaking them only matters if someone else has the will and the means to stop you. A lot of people considered the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be illegal, but the U.S. did not become an "international outlaw" because, to be perfectly honest, nobody has the means to overtly punish the U.S. for anything. The U.N. security council can't take action against the U.S. because the U.S. would just veto any anti-U.S. resolution. Outside the purview of the U.N., the only options for punishing an "international outlaw" are censure, sanctions, and military action. Censure is pretty much meaningless, as PRK, Iraq, Iran, and plenty of others have demonstrated. Any sanctions against the U.S. would hurt the rest of the world economy at least as badly as they would hurt the U.S., so nobody wants that. Military action against the U.S. would most likely result in more harm to the "punishers" than to the U.S, not to mention the damage to the world economy. Basically, the U.S. can get away with anything short of launching overt wars of aggression against peer nations, because nothing else would be worth the trouble of stopping the U.S. The main deterrent against violating the laws of war is the possibility that you might lose, in which case your leadership would be subject to Nuremburg-style trials. If you're in no danger of losing, that deterrent is nonexistent. The only other external reason to follow the laws of war is a quid-pro-quo that you and your enemy will treat each other's POWs well (which, with some notable exceptions, existed on Germany's western front in WWII but not on the eastern front). Of course, there's always internal reasons to observe the law of war, such as societal morals and values, which brings me to my next point: International law is, when you boil it all down, "might makes right" restrained by a combination of self-restraint on the part of super-powers, and the rational desire of most nations to avoid costly and destructive wars and protectionism (with regular lapses in this rationality).
CoryMathews 15y ago
Couldn't they just declare war against evil (terrorism, gangs, crime, etc) or some other loop hole war to get around it.
- swaits 15y ago
  Nah, they would like totally never do that! ;)
flogic 15y ago
We currently have at least one needless war. So I wouldn't put it past them.
ivoflipse 15y ago
Ironically the congress 'takes one for the team', while the companies that supply the army gain profit over the backs of everyone's tax money. If everyone truly took one for the team, wars wouldn't have to be as expensive, because everyone would be fighting for their survival. While its important to win a war, should it be won at any cost and who should pay the price?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

rsbrown 15y ago

The war argument for deficit spending has completely lost credibility with me. It may have been true for WWII, but this argument has been sorely abused in order to justify out of control spending during the various armed conflicts since then. Leaving war as a loophole for runaway deficit spending is a slippery slope, and one that congress clearly has no reluctance sliding down.

code_duck 15y ago

When have we not been 'at war' in the past 40 years?

WalterSear 15y ago
We have not been at war with Eurasia for the past 40 years. We have always not been at war with Eurasia.

pgsucksdick 15y ago

As much as you might like to think differently war is always negatively productive. There might be some corner cases where the destroyed wealth is replaced by more efficient use, but they have yet to demonstrate themselves.

Dove 15y ago
Oh, I don't know. I think it can be a positive thing for a nation to not get conquered.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  I think the parent is talking just about economics. There are very few post-industrial-revolution examples of nations benefiting economically from war. America in WWII is the most notable exception in my mind.
  - Dove 15y ago
    In spite of my flippant tone, I had a serious point too: fighting a war may always come with an economic cost, but losing one can come a much higher cost. Hence, fighting a war can be a positive choice even if you lose money doing it.
    - lucasjung 15y ago
      That's really interesting. To put it another way, economic opportunity costs apply to armed conflict. You can even extend this beyond purely defensive wars. The most obvious extension is pre-emptive wars. A great example would be the Six Days war (aka the 1967 Arab-Israeli war). Israel knew that they were about to be attacked (the massed units on their borders were not subtle), and instead attacked preemptively. Arguably, this reduced the cost of the war for them in a number of ways. First, by seizing the initiative and the element of surprise, they likely reduced their combat losses relative to what they would have experienced if they had waited for their neighbors to attack. Even more importantly, the entire war was fought outside of their then-borders, so their infrastructure was not damaged by the fighting. Clausewitz even makes a case for starting a war that you know you are going to lose. That sounds crazy at first, but in some scenarios it makes sense, because it's not just about the balance of power, it's about the direction in which that balance is shifting. If you are highly certain that another country is going to attack you, and that you will lose, you have to consider whether your defeat would be more or less severe in six months or a year. If the balance of power is shifting in your favor, you want to postpone hostilities as long as possible. If, on the other hand, the balance of power is shifting in favor of your enemy, you want to precipitate a war as soon as possible in the hopes of securing a better position to sue for peace. Either way you know you're going to lose, it's a question of how badly you are going to lose. Finally, even a war of naked aggression could have a nearly immediate net positive impact on your economy if your forces are so superior that you will suffer minimal losses, and if you capture valuable resources as a result, or if you secure tactically valuable terrain that reduces your losses in an impending conflict. The German annexation of the Sudetenland is a prime example of this.

johngalt 15y ago

The next headline would be "permanent war declared against Oilistan" and war spending is never a boondoggle. Governments always use a crisis to grow their power.

pmichaud 15y ago

I'm not sure of the exact dates we've been at war since WW2, but I just checked and saw that we've been engaged in armed conflict continuously since at least before I was born. I don't think that rule would really work. "No, I mean a REAL war..." Yeah.

lmkg 15y ago
Actually "a REAL war" is a meaningful distinction because the term "war" is defined in the Constitution, so it can't be fudged without an amendment. It's only a war if Congress formally declares war on another country, and that hasn't happened since WWII.
- borism 15y ago
  The Constitution A noble piece of paper With free society Struggled but it died in vain And now Democracy is ragtime on the corner Hoping for some rain Looks like it's hoping Hoping for some rain
- DavidAdams 15y ago
  The issue here is that old-fashioned declared war is essentially illegal under the current regime of international law. Because you have to get a security council resolution or be clearly in self-defense these days to engage in armed conflict and not become an international outlaw, all of the "wars" we've engaged in since the 1940s have been "police actions" or "interventions" or somesuch.
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    Personally, I think it's a good thing that the bar is high for "old-fashioned declared war," especially if it is a constitutional prerequisite to deficit spending. IANAL, but my career requires me to be very familiar with certain aspects of international law because I sometimes deal with them in a very direct and pragmatic manner. I probably know more about international law than your average domestic lawyer (but certainly much less than a lawyer who actually specializes in international law!). Almost all international law falls into one of two categories: treaties and precedent. Precedent is huge: if you can enforce an otherwise illegal claim for long enough, it becomes established international law. That's why the U.S. military engages in freedom of navigation operations, to prevent excessive claims to territorial waters and airspace from becoming established precedent. Likewise, if you fail to enforce your sovereign rights as a nation, you eventually establish a precedent that those rights are no longer yours, much like copyright enforcement. In short, if other nations let you get away with something for long enough, it literally becomes legitimate. The UN is based on treaties, as are most of the laws of war. The thing about treaties is that breaking them only matters if someone else has the will and the means to stop you. A lot of people considered the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be illegal, but the U.S. did not become an "international outlaw" because, to be perfectly honest, nobody has the means to overtly punish the U.S. for anything. The U.N. security council can't take action against the U.S. because the U.S. would just veto any anti-U.S. resolution. Outside the purview of the U.N., the only options for punishing an "international outlaw" are censure, sanctions, and military action. Censure is pretty much meaningless, as PRK, Iraq, Iran, and plenty of others have demonstrated. Any sanctions against the U.S. would hurt the rest of the world economy at least as badly as they would hurt the U.S., so nobody wants that. Military action against the U.S. would most likely result in more harm to the "punishers" than to the U.S, not to mention the damage to the world economy. Basically, the U.S. can get away with anything short of launching overt wars of aggression against peer nations, because nothing else would be worth the trouble of stopping the U.S. The main deterrent against violating the laws of war is the possibility that you might lose, in which case your leadership would be subject to Nuremburg-style trials. If you're in no danger of losing, that deterrent is nonexistent. The only other external reason to follow the laws of war is a quid-pro-quo that you and your enemy will treat each other's POWs well (which, with some notable exceptions, existed on Germany's western front in WWII but not on the eastern front). Of course, there's always internal reasons to observe the law of war, such as societal morals and values, which brings me to my next point: International law is, when you boil it all down, "might makes right" restrained by a combination of self-restraint on the part of super-powers, and the rational desire of most nations to avoid costly and destructive wars and protectionism (with regular lapses in this rationality).

CoryMathews 15y ago

Couldn't they just declare war against evil (terrorism, gangs, crime, etc) or some other loop hole war to get around it.

swaits 15y ago
Nah, they would like totally never do that! ;)

flogic 15y ago

We currently have at least one needless war. So I wouldn't put it past them.

ivoflipse 15y ago

Ironically the congress 'takes one for the team', while the companies that supply the army gain profit over the backs of everyone's tax money. If everyone truly took one for the team, wars wouldn't have to be as expensive, because everyone would be fighting for their survival. While its important to win a war, should it be won at any cost and who should pay the price?