11 ms·

Most of those conflicts are a pretense to funnel trillions of dollars into the economy, but almost always also a fight to maintain spheres of influence. This wa

Most of those conflicts are a pretense to funnel trillions of dollars into the economy, but almost always also a fight to maintain spheres of influence. This was certainly true for the Vietnam war, where above all a communist Indonesia had to be avoided, but also obviously for any conflict in the Middle east. What I find worrying is that the War on Terror is a poor substitute for the Cold War. The enemy is technologically unsophisticated, so there is no chance of a sputnik shock, no real competition to gain the upper hand technologically and therefore potentially less incentive to use the vast resources of the military to fund high technology research as it was the case during the Cold War. Moreover the technology developed to "hunt terrorists" can be turned against the population much more easily than the rockets, nuclear weapons and computer systems of the past.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
angersock 12y ago
Moreover the technology developed to "hunt terrorists" can be turned against the population much more easily than the rockets, nuclear weapons and computer systems of the past. You've hit on it in a nutshell, I think. The entire War on Terror is predicated upon the idea that a) we must ferret out and neutralize threats before they manifest and b) we must occupy regions which may generate threats. Those two policies directly manifest in the development of advanced surveillance and techniques of oppression. Even more sickeningly, there is no way of proving it wrong: if something bad happens, the answer is to increase efforts; and if nothing bad happens, the answer is not to cutback the defenses that presumably prevented that nothing. We're doomed.
- TheCraiggers 12y ago
  Usually, I would say that we just have to wait for some sort of wake up call, something the US government fucks up so incredibly that anything involving surveillance of an innocent populace is a poison pill. But we've already had the Snowden leaks, and if that wasn't a wake up call, I don't know what else could be.
  - e12e 12y ago
    The next logical step is death squads, drone surveillance (and strikes?) and kidnappings on US soil, not just abroad. I hope it won't come to that, but I fear it will. Maybe not until 2050 or so, though. Judging by current operations abroad, and historic evidence, like who and how Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) (Nee School of Americas) have been training and for what, things like COINTELPRO -- things are looking grim. [ed: not to mention the lack of consequences from Snowden and the CIA torture report -- there doesn't appear to be even a thin veneer of acountability left.]
Theodores 12y ago
The economy means different things to different people. The black economy is part of the economy but I would not want to funnel trillions of dollars into it. Similarly the arms trade is part of the economy but I wouldn't want to funnel a trillion dollars into it every year. For my money the century of mechanised was has been about taking money out of the economy and into the arms-trade. This shows up as GDP and is therefore a good thing but it is at the expense of things like schools and hospitals. Government borrowing has been at record levels during the 'terror' years, government spending on weapons has been at an all time high. The money gets borrowed from the banks that the politicians know so well. It is a virtuous cycle for them but not us even if that is what they say.
baddox 12y ago
> Most of those conflicts are a pretense to funnel trillions of dollars into the economy It's funneling trillions of dollars into military contractors.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Who are generally required by law to spend most of those dollars on American salaries and American-made products. Thus funneling them into the economy.
  - fchollet 12y ago
    What who you rather get out of your tax dollars, roads and parks and fast internet, or explosives and ammo? Both mean jobs for Americans all the same. It's the value of the output that's different. Why funnel efforts and capital into military instead of funneling the same into producing infrastructure, consumer goods, and advancing science? Yes, both are contributing to "the economy". One is creating collective value, the other is enriching military contractors and creating an incentive to wage war.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
      "Why funnel efforts and capital into military instead of funneling the same into producing infrastructure, consumer goods, and advancing science?" Because that's socialism, if not worse.
    - hueving 12y ago
      That's definitely not a false dichotomy. /s People funnel money into the military because they are afraid of terrorists and whatever else is the flavor of the month.
      - adrianN 12y ago
        You don't need many tanks to fight terrorists. Yet the army is forced to buy more tanks (against its own wishes!), because congressmen don't want the tank-production in their state to stop.
e12e 12y ago
Not to worry. With how things are going in Ukraine, we'll have a great war in Europe again before you know it, with a "real" enemy (Russia). (And we have all that anti-terror stuff to prevent any broad and effective anti-war movement developing... both on the NATO side and on the Russian side). With any "luck" it'll be like when monarchies went to war in the middle ages. Invest in DynCorp International and Academi (nee Blackwater) now.
api 12y ago
"Most of those conflicts are a pretense to funnel trillions of dollars into the economy," This is called military Keynesianism. It's how you can sell Keynesian economics in conservative societies that oppose anything resembling "social" spending. Since it's somehow not wasteful or "socialist" to funnel unlimited stimulus money through the defense budget, that's where it gets funneled. The catch is that you have to have a war somewhere to keep justifying it.
- thecage411 12y ago
  The term is actually "Weaponized Keynesianism", http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/more-thoughts-on-weaponized-keynesianism/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/more-thoughts-on... for reference
  - tunap 12y ago
    And it all comes down to "Supply or Demand". Whatever justifies the greatest return for those who hold the power.
- nickik 12y ago
  Im absolutly no Keynsian but you are misrepresting it. Keynesiansim is not 'lots of government spending' its about increasing spending in case of AD shortfall. Now that might be millitary spending but that only works in a limited set of cases. But the basic idea is of course often used as a excuse by lots of people. Turns out neither the voters nor the politicans have actually read much actual economic theory.
  - api 12y ago
    I'm aware of that, and you're right: pop Keynesianism is not what Keynes actually argued.
cnp 12y ago
I would argue that the entire point is to destabilize regions. Its a technique that all superpowers have used in the past, and continue to use today. The point is not "to win".
- innguest 12y ago
  Bingo. Only a wide-eyed statist would ask "why do we fight all these wars we can't win". Uh, we're winning them alright. The point, as you said, is to destabilize some key regions so that a certain chosen territory can live off an oil monopoly and control pipelines across continents.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
wahsd 12y ago
You aren't quite hitting the nail on the head. It's not about funneling money into the economy, it's about manipulating the systems of governance to make theft of public resources and money tenable. It's the same reason that we have predictable "unpredictable" "bubbles" in the economy and it is why we start wards who's sole purpose is justification to steal public money for private gains. In many ways, there is even a disincentive to winning a war or military conflict at all. Imagine if we had responded to the 9/11 attacks in a smart manner; it would have cost maybe upper double digit millions of dollars to apprehend or kill OBL, but going into Afghanistan like buffoon cost us no less than $1,000,000,000,000.00 in direct expenditures and probably about another trillion in opportunity cost and indirect costs. THAT's the name of the game. Stealing public money to enrich private individuals. As long as there is an incentive to manipulate America into blowing our money and efforts on military boondoggles, we will do exactly that.
- Sven7 12y ago
  So whats the solution?
  - innguest 12y ago
    The solution to collectivism is individualism.
  - wahsd 12y ago
    It's got to lie in creating consequences and re-associating incentives. As long as war makes people rich, it will be perpetuated and we will squander money that could have led us to far better outcomes. With wealth and income disparity becoming so hugely imbalanced, I expect things to only get worse though. Wealth and income disparity only exasperates the motivation to manipulating the system to thrust us into war and military spending, it's a positive feedback loop. Unfortunately, positive feedback loops are rarely, without deliberate action, halted prior to leading to disaster.
- bduerst 12y ago
  Could you elaborate on why it's theft? Your comment didn't really explain it other than saying the Afghanistan war could have been cheaper.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

angersock 12y ago

Moreover the technology developed to "hunt terrorists" can be turned against the population much more easily than the rockets, nuclear weapons and computer systems of the past. You've hit on it in a nutshell, I think. The entire War on Terror is predicated upon the idea that a) we must ferret out and neutralize threats before they manifest and b) we must occupy regions which may generate threats. Those two policies directly manifest in the development of advanced surveillance and techniques of oppression. Even more sickeningly, there is no way of proving it wrong: if something bad happens, the answer is to increase efforts; and if nothing bad happens, the answer is not to cutback the defenses that presumably prevented that nothing. We're doomed.

TheCraiggers 12y ago
Usually, I would say that we just have to wait for some sort of wake up call, something the US government fucks up so incredibly that anything involving surveillance of an innocent populace is a poison pill. But we've already had the Snowden leaks, and if that wasn't a wake up call, I don't know what else could be.
- e12e 12y ago
  The next logical step is death squads, drone surveillance (and strikes?) and kidnappings on US soil, not just abroad. I hope it won't come to that, but I fear it will. Maybe not until 2050 or so, though. Judging by current operations abroad, and historic evidence, like who and how Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) (Nee School of Americas) have been training and for what, things like COINTELPRO -- things are looking grim. [ed: not to mention the lack of consequences from Snowden and the CIA torture report -- there doesn't appear to be even a thin veneer of acountability left.]

Theodores 12y ago

The economy means different things to different people. The black economy is part of the economy but I would not want to funnel trillions of dollars into it. Similarly the arms trade is part of the economy but I wouldn't want to funnel a trillion dollars into it every year. For my money the century of mechanised was has been about taking money out of the economy and into the arms-trade. This shows up as GDP and is therefore a good thing but it is at the expense of things like schools and hospitals. Government borrowing has been at record levels during the 'terror' years, government spending on weapons has been at an all time high. The money gets borrowed from the banks that the politicians know so well. It is a virtuous cycle for them but not us even if that is what they say.

baddox 12y ago

> Most of those conflicts are a pretense to funnel trillions of dollars into the economy It's funneling trillions of dollars into military contractors.

ceejayoz 12y ago
Who are generally required by law to spend most of those dollars on American salaries and American-made products. Thus funneling them into the economy.
- fchollet 12y ago
  What who you rather get out of your tax dollars, roads and parks and fast internet, or explosives and ammo? Both mean jobs for Americans all the same. It's the value of the output that's different. Why funnel efforts and capital into military instead of funneling the same into producing infrastructure, consumer goods, and advancing science? Yes, both are contributing to "the economy". One is creating collective value, the other is enriching military contractors and creating an incentive to wage war.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    "Why funnel efforts and capital into military instead of funneling the same into producing infrastructure, consumer goods, and advancing science?" Because that's socialism, if not worse.
  - hueving 12y ago
    That's definitely not a false dichotomy. /s People funnel money into the military because they are afraid of terrorists and whatever else is the flavor of the month.
    - adrianN 12y ago
      You don't need many tanks to fight terrorists. Yet the army is forced to buy more tanks (against its own wishes!), because congressmen don't want the tank-production in their state to stop.

e12e 12y ago

Not to worry. With how things are going in Ukraine, we'll have a great war in Europe again before you know it, with a "real" enemy (Russia). (And we have all that anti-terror stuff to prevent any broad and effective anti-war movement developing... both on the NATO side and on the Russian side). With any "luck" it'll be like when monarchies went to war in the middle ages. Invest in DynCorp International and Academi (nee Blackwater) now.

api 12y ago

"Most of those conflicts are a pretense to funnel trillions of dollars into the economy," This is called military Keynesianism. It's how you can sell Keynesian economics in conservative societies that oppose anything resembling "social" spending. Since it's somehow not wasteful or "socialist" to funnel unlimited stimulus money through the defense budget, that's where it gets funneled. The catch is that you have to have a war somewhere to keep justifying it.

thecage411 12y ago
The term is actually "Weaponized Keynesianism", http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/more-thoughts-on-weaponized-keynesianism/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/more-thoughts-on... for reference
- tunap 12y ago
  And it all comes down to "Supply or Demand". Whatever justifies the greatest return for those who hold the power.
nickik 12y ago
Im absolutly no Keynsian but you are misrepresting it. Keynesiansim is not 'lots of government spending' its about increasing spending in case of AD shortfall. Now that might be millitary spending but that only works in a limited set of cases. But the basic idea is of course often used as a excuse by lots of people. Turns out neither the voters nor the politicans have actually read much actual economic theory.
- api 12y ago
  I'm aware of that, and you're right: pop Keynesianism is not what Keynes actually argued.

cnp 12y ago

I would argue that the entire point is to destabilize regions. Its a technique that all superpowers have used in the past, and continue to use today. The point is not "to win".

innguest 12y ago
Bingo. Only a wide-eyed statist would ask "why do we fight all these wars we can't win". Uh, we're winning them alright. The point, as you said, is to destabilize some key regions so that a certain chosen territory can live off an oil monopoly and control pipelines across continents.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

wahsd 12y ago

You aren't quite hitting the nail on the head. It's not about funneling money into the economy, it's about manipulating the systems of governance to make theft of public resources and money tenable. It's the same reason that we have predictable "unpredictable" "bubbles" in the economy and it is why we start wards who's sole purpose is justification to steal public money for private gains. In many ways, there is even a disincentive to winning a war or military conflict at all. Imagine if we had responded to the 9/11 attacks in a smart manner; it would have cost maybe upper double digit millions of dollars to apprehend or kill OBL, but going into Afghanistan like buffoon cost us no less than $1,000,000,000,000.00 in direct expenditures and probably about another trillion in opportunity cost and indirect costs. THAT's the name of the game. Stealing public money to enrich private individuals. As long as there is an incentive to manipulate America into blowing our money and efforts on military boondoggles, we will do exactly that.

Sven7 12y ago
So whats the solution?
- innguest 12y ago
  The solution to collectivism is individualism.
- wahsd 12y ago
  It's got to lie in creating consequences and re-associating incentives. As long as war makes people rich, it will be perpetuated and we will squander money that could have led us to far better outcomes. With wealth and income disparity becoming so hugely imbalanced, I expect things to only get worse though. Wealth and income disparity only exasperates the motivation to manipulating the system to thrust us into war and military spending, it's a positive feedback loop. Unfortunately, positive feedback loops are rarely, without deliberate action, halted prior to leading to disaster.
bduerst 12y ago
Could you elaborate on why it's theft? Your comment didn't really explain it other than saying the Afghanistan war could have been cheaper.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]