3 ms·

Those things have some value, but in the long run war is almost entirely waste. The value you gain is greatly outweighed by the value of what you have lost. We

by db48x 3y ago

Those things have some value, but in the long run war is almost entirely waste. The value you gain is greatly outweighed by the value of what you have lost. We are not losing many lives, but we are losing the opportunity to build things that would profit us (or the Ukrainians!) more. Every tank could have been a locomotive, or turbine in a power plant, or a couple of semis, or hundreds of washing machines. Why do you think the Russian soldiers were so happy to steal washing machines from bombed-out Ukranian cities? Even necessary wars are a waste.

D13Fd 3y ago
Agreed. But the choice right now is not “war” vs. “no war.” Standing with our ally and funding Ukraine is the choice that deters more war. Running away and letting Russia’s baseless aggression continue unchecked will lead to more war in the long run, both from Russia and China.
- db48x 3y ago
  That’s true, but in no way contradicts what I said. Even a necessary war is a waste. To think that the spending on war material boosts the economy in any way is purely to repeat the broken window fallacy. Yes, once the glazier’s son starts breaking windows you will be forced to put a stop to it, and that may require violence. The cost of arresting the glazier’s son, holding a trial, and imprisoning him is rather smaller than the cost of a war, but it is a cost all the same. You only willingly pay that cost when the alternative is to have another window broken every night for the rest of your life. Likewise, we believe that the cost of the war in Ukraine will be less than the cost of Russia’s future aggression should they win in Ukraine, so we willingly pay the cost of the war. Because Russia started the war, we are now faced with paying the cost of winning it or of paying the cost of losing it. We choose to pay the one that we think will be less, _but it is still a cost we were forced to pay by someone else_. It is a net harm to us either way! (Not to mention the harm to Ukraine!) We shouldn’t be glad that we gave Ukraine money and they are spending it with defense companies based in the US. Even if we take some solace in that fact, all it does is shift the money around; it doesn’t grow our economy. Just because it could be worse does not mean it is a net benefit.

by db48x 3y ago

D13Fd 3y ago

Agreed. But the choice right now is not “war” vs. “no war.” Standing with our ally and funding Ukraine is the choice that deters more war. Running away and letting Russia’s baseless aggression continue unchecked will lead to more war in the long run, both from Russia and China.

db48x 3y ago
That’s true, but in no way contradicts what I said. Even a necessary war is a waste. To think that the spending on war material boosts the economy in any way is purely to repeat the broken window fallacy. Yes, once the glazier’s son starts breaking windows you will be forced to put a stop to it, and that may require violence. The cost of arresting the glazier’s son, holding a trial, and imprisoning him is rather smaller than the cost of a war, but it is a cost all the same. You only willingly pay that cost when the alternative is to have another window broken every night for the rest of your life. Likewise, we believe that the cost of the war in Ukraine will be less than the cost of Russia’s future aggression should they win in Ukraine, so we willingly pay the cost of the war. Because Russia started the war, we are now faced with paying the cost of winning it or of paying the cost of losing it. We choose to pay the one that we think will be less, _but it is still a cost we were forced to pay by someone else_. It is a net harm to us either way! (Not to mention the harm to Ukraine!) We shouldn’t be glad that we gave Ukraine money and they are spending it with defense companies based in the US. Even if we take some solace in that fact, all it does is shift the money around; it doesn’t grow our economy. Just because it could be worse does not mean it is a net benefit.