11 ms·
I agree that war is a neg negative but the flatting effect on the economy is well studied. If you've got inequality so bad that it's causing serious problems y
by throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I agree that war is a neg negative but the flatting effect on the economy is well studied. If you've got inequality so bad that it's causing serious problems you can still wind up being net positive after a war (or any other net negative event that flattens things out) several years out because the flattening broke the economy out of the feedback loops that were causing problems.
- gregwebs 5y agoSo the utility of war isn’t the economic mobilization that is claimed but instead the cover it provides for implementing a progressive tax rate, etc
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoBased on my casual observation it has (almost) nothing to do with the policies and (almost) everything to do with the effect on the economy of a total war.
- imtringued 5y agoWhat wars do is break monopoly power. If the rich own all the land, money, patents you can take it from them. Inflation doesn't create prosperity through an increase in the supply of money, it increases prosperity by breaking the monopoly power of money. During deflation you create $10 of value (assuming perfect price stability) but since the value of the dollar has risen you only get paid $5. When you add more dollars into the economy the monopoly power is shrinking, you get paid the whole $10 again. Negative interest rates break the monopoly power of money by charging a holding fee for excessive patience. Land value taxes break the monopoly power of land. Democracy breaks the monopoly power on ruling the nation. What we basically need is a slow decline in power, year by year instead of an instantaneous decline of power in a war or revolution.