3 ms·
No they didn't. Governments don't spend, they invest. That may seem like splitting hairs but it's not. It's not like there were trillions of dollars sitting aro
by amrocha 3y ago
No they didn't. Governments don't spend, they invest. That may seem like splitting hairs but it's not. It's not like there were trillions of dollars sitting around waiting to be spent. The real tragedy of war is not that trillions were spent, but that millions of people and resources are poured into it instead of something that improves society.
Your argument of efficiency is inherently flawed. It implies that war is good as long as it's cost effective, which isn't true.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Governments don't spend, Yes, they do. > they invest. Even if all government spending was investment, investment is just spending in the expectation of future return. > It's not like there were trillions of dollars sitting around waiting to be spent. It is literally exactly like that. > The real tragedy of war is not that trillions were spent True, that's not the real tragedy of war. But that's because spending money isn’t tragedy (though the opportunity cost of the choice of how to spend it can be), not because government spending is not-spending, so the trillions spent on war are not-spent. > Your argument of efficiency is inherently flawed. It implies that war is good as long as it's cost effective, which isn't true. I thought the context was clear that I was referring to utilitarian justification, whether it is good is a differebt story, sure.
- amrocha 3y agoYou should educate yourself on macro economics