IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Bad, especially in the long run.
War materials are by definition a waste of money. They are either expended (at great expense) with no economic return or they are surplused out at three cents on the dollar, or they actually cost a whole lot to dismantle and dispose of.

Actually using them is probably the worst of the three deals.

A very few make a great deal of money and perpetuate the myth that war is good for the economy.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Waste of money, yes. But the side effects.
Wars do in fact boost the economy. I don't know why. I don't think anyone knows why, least of all those who claim to be experts.

The economy is a profoundly complex, nonlinear system, a rats nest of feedback loops both postive and negative. Nobody understands it. Nobody. All macroeconomics is voodoo economics.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
New Two possibilities
Either you waste your money on war material, or your money gets wasted by the enemy. What was the cost of those twin towers, again?

Or, as someone else said, "those who won't feed their own army will feed the enemy's".
New Not so complex, no more a waste than many other things
Modern economies to a large extent *depend* on "waste of money" production. Once enough of the "basic needs" (food, clothing, housing) are being produced, it all becomes largely a question of *distributing* the wealth. And with modern production systems, a tiny minority of the population is enough to produce all that we "really need". So why doesn't all the money end up in the pockets of those few? Well, because modern society has successfully indoctrinated them (along with everybody else) that they need a lot of "strictly speaking useless" frippery, like fashion clothing and PlayStations and manicures and... and so on and on and on, ad absurdum.

So the money circulates -- and thus, stimulates production as well as distributing the means necessary to live -- from the ones one might naively think would be the only ones to "deserve" or be able to get any (farmers, miners, workers and employees in "non-frippery" industries) out among everybody else, be they hairdressers, telephone sanitation technicians, or polishers of pet rocks and Barney-doll marketing VPs. And martial equipment is just one more kind of the same wider category; not-strictly-necessary stuff that nevertheless "gets the wheels of the economy rolling faster".

Quite contary to what you may think at first, this "waste" does not mean you get less "real useful" production out of the economy (though you might get fewer manicures and pet rocks and Barney dolls for a while; there *is* after all *some* "crowding out"), but more: All the people, from miners and smelters to weapons-industry technologists and executives, who are building those tanks and guns and rockets -- they're getting paid in money that's just as real as anyone else's! And they, too, are queuing up to buy food and cars and jeans and hair-cuts! (Albeit possibly Barney dolls and pet rocks.)

Which stimulates those industries to produce more, not less.
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
     Now that the US will spend 40? Billion; Effect on economy? - (brettj) - (10)
         Bad, especially in the long run. - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
             Waste of money, yes. But the side effects. - (marlowe)
             Two possibilities - (Arkadiy)
             Not so complex, no more a waste than many other things - (CRConrad)
         Re: Now that the US will spend 40? Billion; Effect on econom - (gtall) - (1)
             Multiplier effect, directed activity - (kmself)
         Wars seem to always be good for an economy - (wharris2) - (2)
             Possibly not this time - (tseliot) - (1)
                 That's your problem with never fighting your wars at home - (CRConrad)
         Not good - (JayMehaffey)

We get more play than a 6-disc changer in a bitchin' Camaro.
66 ms