4 ms·

> Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peaceful scenarios? Sadly, war is often a driver of economic growth. WWII pulled the US economy out the

> Why is it that we can dream up more conflict but not peaceful scenarios? Sadly, war is often a driver of economic growth. WWII pulled the US economy out the Great Depression and transformed it into one of the most prosperous in human history. I'd argue that the proxy wars the US has been waging largely exist to satiate a military industrial complex that is focused on growth. Hard to grow when your business is war if there are no wars to fight. And I'll wade into political waters. The US government has no problem waging war because it's not unpopular enough of an issue to threaten an administration. We're spending $1B a day now to fight Iran but we somehow can't find the political courage to improve healthcare or hunger here at home.

ACCount37 6mo ago
That's a property shared by any large scale government spending. The difference between pouring 80B into a war and pouring the same into infrastructure is that one gives you a more developed MIC and a lot of munitions and a lot of explosions (exported), and the other gives you... infrastructure, and construction industry.
- lotsofpulp 6mo ago
  A big part of this is that apparently, any president can unilaterally decide to go to war and spend $1B per day destroying things, but building infrastructure for Americans requires the agreement of 60 US Senators. Pre-emptive strikes are “national security”, but ensuring nutritional food for children in schools, safe bridges and potable water, and healthcare are not “national security”. Look what Biden had to do to try and get Americans a piddling amount of paid sick leave and paid parental leave. And still 60 votes couldn’t be mustered. But if he wanted to bomb another country to the stone age, that was well within his capacity.
  - nradov 6mo ago
    US states are free to build infrastructure without any federal involvement or permission. California just spent $114M to build a wildlife crossing bridge over Highway 101. https://smmc.ca.gov/liberty-canyon-wildlife-corridor/ https://smmc.ca.gov/liberty-canyon-wildlife-corridor/
    - gmerc 6mo ago
      That’s not the same thing tho. issit?
      - nradov 6mo ago
        How is it not the same? State governments can just build things without the approval of federal senators.
        lotsofpulp 6mo ago
        Starting with CodingJeebus' comment, the context of the discussion is what the US federal government can and cannot do, or does and does not do, at the best of a single person (the US President). They have the power to direct destruction, but not the power to direct creation. Not only is a state government's capabilities irrelevant, it is also incomparable to the might of the US federal government, given its unique ability to sell US Treasuries and issue US currency. State governments are also in competition with each other, unlike the federal government which is in competition with other countries and has more power to restrict and negotiate trade agreements.
        nradov 6mo ago
        You're completely missing the point. States can build infrastructure on their own. They don't need to depend on the federal government for everything.
abletonlive 6mo ago
> but we somehow can't find the political courage to improve healthcare or hunger here at home. Sounds like you're buying into reddit propaganda. The US spends more on social programs than it does on war, so apparently we have and can definitely find the courage to improve healthcare and hunger. In fact, hunger is mostly not an issue in the united states.

ACCount37 6mo ago

That's a property shared by any large scale government spending. The difference between pouring 80B into a war and pouring the same into infrastructure is that one gives you a more developed MIC and a lot of munitions and a lot of explosions (exported), and the other gives you... infrastructure, and construction industry.

lotsofpulp 6mo ago
A big part of this is that apparently, any president can unilaterally decide to go to war and spend $1B per day destroying things, but building infrastructure for Americans requires the agreement of 60 US Senators. Pre-emptive strikes are “national security”, but ensuring nutritional food for children in schools, safe bridges and potable water, and healthcare are not “national security”. Look what Biden had to do to try and get Americans a piddling amount of paid sick leave and paid parental leave. And still 60 votes couldn’t be mustered. But if he wanted to bomb another country to the stone age, that was well within his capacity.
- nradov 6mo ago
  US states are free to build infrastructure without any federal involvement or permission. California just spent $114M to build a wildlife crossing bridge over Highway 101. https://smmc.ca.gov/liberty-canyon-wildlife-corridor/ https://smmc.ca.gov/liberty-canyon-wildlife-corridor/
  - gmerc 6mo ago
    That’s not the same thing tho. issit?
    - nradov 6mo ago
      How is it not the same? State governments can just build things without the approval of federal senators.
      - lotsofpulp 6mo ago
        Starting with CodingJeebus' comment, the context of the discussion is what the US federal government can and cannot do, or does and does not do, at the best of a single person (the US President). They have the power to direct destruction, but not the power to direct creation. Not only is a state government's capabilities irrelevant, it is also incomparable to the might of the US federal government, given its unique ability to sell US Treasuries and issue US currency. State governments are also in competition with each other, unlike the federal government which is in competition with other countries and has more power to restrict and negotiate trade agreements.
        nradov 6mo ago
        You're completely missing the point. States can build infrastructure on their own. They don't need to depend on the federal government for everything.

abletonlive 6mo ago

> but we somehow can't find the political courage to improve healthcare or hunger here at home. Sounds like you're buying into reddit propaganda. The US spends more on social programs than it does on war, so apparently we have and can definitely find the courage to improve healthcare and hunger. In fact, hunger is mostly not an issue in the united states.