3 ms·

> And to agree with others on this thread, the folks who push for war should 100% be required to participate in them and lead from the front I agree but I don'

> And to agree with others on this thread, the folks who push for war should 100% be required to participate in them and lead from the front I agree but I don't think it goes far enough. Leading from the front of the best equipped military in the world doesn't balance your incentives against the misery you are inflicting on the innocent denizens of the poor country you're pointlessly destroying. There's also the economic destruction back home to balance against. So, those who call for war should be forbidden to privately fund their healthcare and children's education.

_doctor_love 6mo ago
Agree. I believe during WW2 the government put rules in place to prevent companies from making too much profit from the war. From what I recall in history class taxes were raised significantly as well. War is a mighty economic engine, this cannot be denied. But if we take an entire country to war, then it stands to reason that the entire country should benefit from the spoils (to the extent that there are any).
- ourmandave 6mo ago
  War is a mighty economic engine, this cannot be denied. Isn't that the broken window fallacy writ large?
  - JuniperMesos 6mo ago
    Yes; WWII was an economic disaster for huge swaths of the world. The US is pretty much the only industrialized country at the time where it wasn't a complete economic disaster, because it was separated by oceans from nearly all the fighting and destruction. If there's a shootout in a town that ends up with most peoples' windows getting shot out, the one town glazier will make money off of this, even though it's a net-negative for the town as a whole.
  - _doctor_love 6mo ago
    I may be misunderstanding but I don't think so. War forces people's hand in terms having to make progress. This is because during progress can be measured in number of body bags returning from the front and the reduction thereof. Our modern world was born out of scientific advancements made during WW2. Could these same achievements have occurred in peace time? Obviously the answer is yes. However during war, everything becomes accelerated and things that normally would take a long time can happen very quickly. I agree that paying for scientific progress with human lives is a bad thing.
    - bjackman 6mo ago
      Not just with human lives but with staggering amounts of economic growth. In a globalised system there's absolutely no way the stimulation of war pays for the destruction and disruption.

_doctor_love 6mo ago

Agree. I believe during WW2 the government put rules in place to prevent companies from making too much profit from the war. From what I recall in history class taxes were raised significantly as well. War is a mighty economic engine, this cannot be denied. But if we take an entire country to war, then it stands to reason that the entire country should benefit from the spoils (to the extent that there are any).

ourmandave 6mo ago
War is a mighty economic engine, this cannot be denied. Isn't that the broken window fallacy writ large?
- JuniperMesos 6mo ago
  Yes; WWII was an economic disaster for huge swaths of the world. The US is pretty much the only industrialized country at the time where it wasn't a complete economic disaster, because it was separated by oceans from nearly all the fighting and destruction. If there's a shootout in a town that ends up with most peoples' windows getting shot out, the one town glazier will make money off of this, even though it's a net-negative for the town as a whole.
- _doctor_love 6mo ago
  I may be misunderstanding but I don't think so. War forces people's hand in terms having to make progress. This is because during progress can be measured in number of body bags returning from the front and the reduction thereof. Our modern world was born out of scientific advancements made during WW2. Could these same achievements have occurred in peace time? Obviously the answer is yes. However during war, everything becomes accelerated and things that normally would take a long time can happen very quickly. I agree that paying for scientific progress with human lives is a bad thing.
  - bjackman 6mo ago
    Not just with human lives but with staggering amounts of economic growth. In a globalised system there's absolutely no way the stimulation of war pays for the destruction and disruption.