4 ms·
Wars are very expensive and destructive. It's hard to become advanced when you keep destroying wealth. You have it backwards. Wars create wealth. That is, in p
by tx 19y ago
Wars are very expensive and destructive. It's hard to become advanced when you keep destroying wealth.
You have it backwards. Wars create wealth. That is, in part, why we keep having them.
- curi 19y agoIs this like breaking windows creates wealth, or what? Physical goods are destroyed. Man hours are used up. How is that wealth creation?
- pchristensen 19y agoI think he means that the need for technological superiority in order to win wars paves the way for future wealth creation. Just look at how many wonderful new technologies started as DARPA projects. More controversially, war deaths reduce the supply of labor, making it more valuable for those who survive. The Black Plague had a similar effect.
- curi 19y agoBreaking windows increases the need for new windows, thus paving the wave for new window technology. But you could have researched that anyway, without breaking the window first. When you are forced to research something b/c of a broken window, or war, you set aside what would have otherwise been a higher priority. Being forced to do something is not a good way to discover the best priority. Free choice, while imperfect, works better.
- daniel-cussen 19y agoI'm pretty sure tx was being sarcastic.
- curi 19y agoWhy do you think that?
- tx 19y agoI will restrain myself from a long discussion on the subject, but encourage you to google your way around for various pros/cons regarding the concept. One of the most famous explanations for our need of physical destruction of goods was given in "1984"
- npotter 19y agowars create additional financial wealth, but they don't create material wealth. Wars are inflationary. The best definition of wealth has nothing to do with money, but instead asks what the productive potential is. Wars decrease productive potential. They may increase it for one society and decrease it for another, but the sum total is reduced. There are interesting questions here about the destruction of low productivity facilities, say a factory of weavers, versus destruction of high productivity facilities such as a factory of weaving machines. Also, some wealth is lost in the form of bullets, bombs, and other weapons that are used in the process. It's not the total cost of the bomb, but it is the cost of the physical material that makes the bomb.
- jkush 19y agoThat's a very interesting comment tx. I never quite thought about it that way, but that doesn't mean I'm convinced you're right.
- deleted 19y ago[deleted]