• U.S. economy poised to accelerate
    91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Appellation;39719276]No, but it can. That's all I've been arguing. While you've been arguing that war invariably slows down progress and/or economic growth.[/QUOTE] Well it does. I'm not too sure how killing loads of people, focusing efforts into producing goods that will then be destroyed in a conflict that will ultimately not be beneficial. When you make a gun, the wealth used to create it could have been used to invest into something else. What's worse, is that the gun won't create any further wealth in itself, except for hunting (and not all of them do that). How would you justify nuclear weapons for instance? Would it not be better to create nuclear power plants with all those physicists and radioactive material you have?
But I would like to thank you. If it weren't for this discussion I wouldn't have unpacked this book. It covers a wide swath of economics, I'm going to enjoy refreshing my memory.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39715031][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window[/url][/QUOTE] you really like posting that link lately don't you
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39719326]you really like posting that link lately don't you[/QUOTE] Repetition is key to learning.
What about the multiplier effect? Also, it's the machinery that's important. "...They did so with the most up-to-date factories and equipment . The result was [B]a substantial increase in labor productivity, which allowed these economies to realize [I]production possibilities exceeding those that had existed before the war.[/I][/B]" [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] The destruction forced them into it. Their own losses aided them in their recovery. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] I'm not advocating war, but I won't ignore its results.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39719308]Well it does. I'm not too sure how killing loads of people, focusing efforts into producing goods that will then be destroyed in a conflict that will ultimately not be beneficial. When you make a gun, the wealth used to create it could have been used to invest into something else. What's worse, is that the gun won't create any further wealth in itself, except for hunting.[/QUOTE] The thing is, in times of war technological advancement and armament is needed in order to both attempt to emerge victorious from whatever struggle said country/force is facing, and to actually stimulate the national economy (ex. the US). By creating more weaponry like guns, ammo, machinery, transport trucks, rail lines, communication lines, etc. it employs more people. As you probably know, the government doesn't make this all themselves. They contract (through their defense departments, usually in the case of warfare) defense, industrial and manufacturing companies to mass-produce this for them at a rate in which the government can sustain itself. As the government makes this partnership with corporations, the companies must also seek to make a profit, or at least good revenues. In this way, they can pay for their existing employees, and hire more to meet the increased demand. This is applicable through the different sectors the government contracts in order to power their war machine. As their war machine is continually powered (as long as these government-corporation contracts/partnerships hold up, which the bureaucratic side of the state deals with so assume they do for the duration of the war, or at least until they are overpowered by the enemy), it continually fuels employment across different sectors. As people become employed, they become "wealthier" in terms of personal (and disposable) income. They pay taxes to the government, and during war may purchase war/victory bonds (as they did in WW1 (I think 2 as well?)), which provides the state with more money to continue this cycle. I realize that this is very, very simplified but I hope it answers your question in a macroeconomic, political and fiscal sense. One thing I didn't include in my explanation is something that is unrelated (sort of) to financials - morale. During war, propaganda by the government is a huuuuge fuel to boost national morale and pride. This helps significantly in enhancing the above process. There may be a net loss at the get-go, sure, but eventually everything drives to zero (or more). btw this is Prez, but my laptop died and I lost my email/password for that account. :< edit: As Appellation noted, I also despise war. While the effects may be [i]sort-of[/i] positive (not the best word but I digress), there are much better options. I was simply answering your specific question/concerns.
[QUOTE=Appellation;39719346]What about the multiplier effect? Also, it's the machinery that's important. "...They did so with the most up-to-date factories and equipment . The result was [B]a substantial increase in labor productivity, which allowed these economies to realize [I]production possibilities exceeding those that had existed before the war.[/I][/B]"[/QUOTE] Except a great deal of resources had also to be spent repairing the damage of the war, and the resources spent on causing, and then repairing the damage outweighs the benefits brought from the war.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39719362]Except a great deal of resources had also to be spent repairing the damage of the war, and the resources spent on causing, and then repairing the damage outweighs the benefits brought from the war.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. Do you have any statistics to substantiate this claim? It may be true in some cases, but in others the opposite may be true.
Economies don't invariably put all of their efforts into increasing future growth, as you seem to assume.
[QUOTE=ShadowAlt;39719361]The thing is, in times of war technological advancement and armament is needed in order to both attempt to emerge victorious from whatever struggle said country/force is facing, and to actually stimulate the national economy (ex. the US). By creating more weaponry like guns, ammo, machinery, transport trucks, rail lines, communication lines, etc. it employs more people. As you probably know, the government doesn't make this all themselves. They contract (through their defense departments, usually in the case of warfare) defense, industrial and manufacturing companies to mass-produce this for them at a rate in which the government can sustain itself. As the government makes this partnership with corporations, the companies must also seek to make a profit, or at least good revenues. In this way, they can pay for their existing employees, and hire more to meet the increased demand. This is applicable through the different sectors the government contracts in order to power their war machine. As their war machine is continually powered (as long as these government-corporation contracts/partnerships hold up, which the bureaucratic side of the state deals with so assume they do for the duration of the war, or at least until they are overpowered by the enemy), it continually fuels employment across different sectors. As people become employed, they become "wealthier" in terms of personal (and disposable) income. They pay taxes to the government, and during war may purchase war/victory bonds (as they did in WW1 (I think 2 as well?)), which provides the state with more money to continue this cycle. I realize that this is very, very simplified but I hope it answers your question in a macroeconomic, political and fiscal sense. One thing I didn't include in my explanation is something that is unrelated (sort of) to financials - morale. During war, propaganda by the government is a huuuuge fuel to boost national morale and pride. This helps significantly in enhancing the above process. There may be a net loss at the get-go, sure, but eventually everything drives to zero (or more).[/QUOTE] This is just a keynesian policy in the end though (which is ultimately unsustainable). Along with that, you are actively creating a system geared towards the destruction of resources. All you have done in a war is turned consumer goods into bombs and bullets, then used them up. You don't actually create wealth, or aid in wealth creation due to war.
Our entire civilization is ultimately unsustainable.
[QUOTE=ShadowAlt;39719377]Not necessarily. Do you have any statistics to substantiate this claim? It may be true in some cases, but in others the opposite may be true.[/QUOTE] Using this for a source. [url]http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-world-war-II-pg2.htm[/url] [quote]Monetarily, in 1940 dollars, the estimated cost was $288 Billion. In 2007 dollars this would amount to approximately $5 Trillion.[/quote] 5 trillion. [quote]In addition, the effects of the war on the U.S. economy were that it decisively ended the depression and created a booming economic windfall. Because the United States mainland was untouched by the war her economic wealth and prosperity soared as she became the world leader in manufacturing, technology, industry and agriculture.[/quote] This seems like it was a good thing, but then you also have to realize that a lot of competition from overseas had been completely wrecked, plus the USA had Keynesian policies in place that stimulated growth.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39719384]This is just a keynesian policy in the end though (which is ultimately unsustainable).[/quote] Which is why countries strive to end a war as soon as possible. It works to an extent in the short term, and that's why countries do what they can to end a war as fast as they can. If not, you're right that it's unsustainable, in which point the nation involved will need to adopt austerity measures and change their warfare tactics to put themselves in a continually dominant position. [quote]Along with that, you are actively creating a system geared towards the destruction of resources[/quote] In a way yes, but those resources will be quickly replaced (as is true with any resource if you think about it. Everything has a lifespan, and many things depreciate quickly and must be replaced. Warfare is a much quicker process, true, but the manpower required to replace equipment and the underlying economic implications that are tied to it aid in recovering those losses.) [quote]All you have done in a war is turned consumer goods into bombs and bullets, then used them up. You don't actually create wealth, or aid in wealth creation due to war.[/QUOTE] While you may have turned potential goods into "bombs and bullets", as I said while they are used up, they are continuously replaced. In this process, markets are driven back to zero and losses are recovered through the replacement effort. Subsequently, consumer goods can be created from surpluses added through these Keynesian policies used (or other, more long-term policies if any surpluses exist from these).
[QUOTE=Appellation;39719379]Economies don't invariably put all of their efforts into increasing future growth, as you seem to assume.[/QUOTE] But putting an entire nations economic potential (as is the goal with total war) towards destruction of an enemy, whilst makes good reading, doesn't actually help anyone.
The universe is a system geared towards the destruction of resources, as is capitalism. Capitalism encourages the waste of resources for profit. Global warming? Not going to affect my bonus next year, but the cost of reducing emissions could. "But global warming could lead to a loss of arable land in the future" What was that last part? "In the future" What will I be doing then? " You'll be retired...or dead" And rich as hell.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39719416]But putting an entire nations economic potential (as is the goal with total war) towards destruction of an enemy, whilst makes good reading, doesn't actually help anyone.[/QUOTE] I hate to be quoting wikipedia, but if you read [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war#United_States]the US section in "Total War"[/url] it details how the entire nation was mobilized to the war effort (as you said), and the effect was: [quote]By the war's end a multitude of advances had been made in medicine, physics, engineering, and the other sciences. [/quote] I know it's very vague, but across the interwebs you can find substantiation for that.
[QUOTE=ShadowAlt;39719415]Which is why countries strive to end a war as soon as possible. It works to an extent in the short term, and that's why countries do what they can to end a war as fast as they can. If not, you're right that it's unsustainable, in which point the nation involved will need to adopt austerity measures and change their warfare tactics to put themselves in a continually dominant position.[/quote] Usually in wars, once the nation gets right into a war (WW1 combatants being a prime example), they will begin to encounter inflation and a dry rot of industry. [quote]In a way yes, but those resources will be quickly replaced (as is true with any resource if you think about it. Everything has a lifespan, and many things depreciate quickly and must be replaced. Warfare is a much quicker process, true, but the manpower required to replace equipment and the underlying economic implications that are tied to it aid in recovering those losses.)[/quote] Whilst they will be replaced however, won't that ultimately result in you just delaying the creation of future goods? [quote]While you may have turned potential goods into "bombs and bullets", as I said while they are used up, they are continuously replaced. In this process, markets are driven back to zero and losses are recovered through the replacement effort. Subsequently, consumer goods can be created from surpluses added through these Keynesian policies used (or other, more long-term policies if any surpluses exist from these).[/QUOTE] I'm not too sure how this creates wealth though. If we looked at the world as a whole, two states at war will waste resources trying to show dominance over the other. They do not really aid in economic development. [editline]26th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Appellation;39719437]The universe is a system geared towards the destruction of resources, as is capitalism. Capitalism encourages the waste of resources for profit. Global warming? Not going to affect my bonus next year, but the cost of reducing emissions could. "But global warming could lead to a loss of arable land in the future" What was that last part? "In the future" What will I be doing then? " You'll be retired...or dead" And rich as hell.[/QUOTE] The universe isn't geared towards the destruction of matter or energy though. The latter is impossible, and the former is impossible unless you convert it into energy. Resources are finite, and a group of people have to figure out the best way of allocating them. Destruction is not really one.
5 trillion ain't much. If that's really all it cost, we definitely came out ahead.
[QUOTE=ShadowAlt;39719467]I hate to be quoting wikipedia, but if you read [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war#United_States]the US section in "Total War"[/url] it details how the entire nation was mobilized to the war effort (as you said), and the effect was: I know it's very vague, but across the interwebs you can find substantiation for that.[/QUOTE] Except they only bring advance in those areas because funding or more focus was given to them. Peacetime scientific research suffers in war. You could have gotten all the scientific achievements of WW2 if you had just given funding to those people and asked them to develop a census tabulating machine or nuclear power.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39719469] Resources are finite, and a group of people have to figure out the best way of allocating them. Destruction is not really one.[/QUOTE] Yes, resources are scarce. The allocation of these resources is obviously very important. I'm assuming in this whole scenario you're making the assumption that the country we're talking about started the war in question? Because if they didnt then this argument is irrelevant because they [b]need[/b] to defend themselves.
[QUOTE=Appellation;39719496]5 trillion ain't much. If that's really all it cost, we definitely came out ahead.[/QUOTE] It's a third of ALL wealth the USA produced this year alone. The USA of 1940 produced a lot less than the USA of now.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39719497] Peacetime scientific research suffers in war. You could have gotten all the scientific achievements of WW2 if you had just given funding to those people and asked them to develop a census tabulating machine or nuclear power.[/QUOTE] Ok, well have you seen peacetime research in the past 10-15 years? There might be a "war" in the middle east (Afghanistan/Iraq) in which is the US is actively engaged in, it's not total war so the allocation of resources isn't near to what we've been describing. Funding has gone to science, medicine and more (though defense does get a lot, not as much as they would during another WW I'd think). The big thing that I personally see is that during a time of war, people have something to work [i]towards[/i] (good or bad is irrelevant). While "for the good of humankind" is all well and good, it's very broad and I don't think it provides for the same amount of motivation as "to destroy the enemy". I know this is blunt and negative, but in my opinion it's true. That is why advancement in wars has been shown to be very large - they work towards destroying their opponent and the government puts all their resources into it.
[QUOTE=ShadowAlt;39719502]Yes, resources are scarce. The allocation of these resources is obviously very important. I'm assuming in this whole scenario you're making the assumption that the country we're talking about started the war in question? Because if they didnt then this argument is irrelevant because they [b]need[/b] to defend themselves.[/QUOTE] Then doesn't that mean war is destructive to both sides though. [editline]26th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ShadowAlt;39719522]Ok, well have you seen peacetime research in the past 10-15 years? There might be a "war" in the middle east (Afghanistan/Iraq) in which is the US is actively engaged in, it's not total war so the allocation of resources isn't near to what we've been describing. Funding has gone to science, medicine and more (though defense does get a lot, not as much as they would during another WW I'd think). The big thing that I personally see is that during a time of war, people have something to work [i]towards[/i] (good or bad is irrelevant). While "for the good of humankind" is all well and good, it's very broad and I don't think it provides for the same amount of motivation as "to destroy the enemy". I know this is blunt and negative, but in my opinion it's true. That is why advancement in wars has been shown to be very large - they work towards destroying their opponent and the government puts all their resources into it.[/QUOTE] Scientists have other incentives, such as money, fame, etc. I'm thinking that being recognized as a preeminent researcher, being given a nobel prize, or a cheque would be as big an incentive as "kill the germans".
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39719525]Then doesn't that mean war is destructive to both sides though. [editline]26th February 2013[/editline] Scientists have other incentives, such as money, fame, etc. I'm thinking that being recognized as a preeminent researcher, being given a nobel prize, or a cheque would be as big an incentive as "kill the germans".[/QUOTE] In regards to your comment on destruction for both sides - why not? For the other part - could those things you mention not be results of "killing the germans" as you put it?
Consumer goods. Capital goods. Difference in effect on future growth. Growth can compound on itself. War increases investment in otherwise unaffordable fields. Jets fighters. Air liners. Cold war. Internet. 5 trillion investment over 50 years ago, still paying off.
Massively autistic, fedora wearing, opinionated pimply child
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39717855]I don't think you understand the point. The point is that when a window is smashed, money must be spent replacing it that would be otherwise spent on something else. We scale it up. A war is inherently destructive, with it expending bullets and lives. Scaling it up of course, it can be taken to see that every penny spent on warfare is taking a penny away from education or clothing the hungry. Japan for instance, doesn't have a proper army, so it can actually spend a lot of its money on public works that actually benefit people, rather than an army.[/QUOTE] While that's generally true, used as an argument against WWII being beneficial to the American economy it falls apart. We jumped ahead of other nations at the end of WWII because the war wasn't on our soil, and there was no rebuilding to do. Plus we didn't even take part militarily in the beginning of the war, we just sold supplies to our allies, and got to take advantage of increased employment, and new markets for our goods while the rest of the developed world was burning to the ground.
raising minimum wage seems like a good idea, also cutting military spending
After reading all this, I did say on the first page that you'd have to know economics to understand what's going on, and you didn't believe me
[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;39717951]it also cures male pattern baldness, solves world hunger, and makes everyone's penises bigger! even women![/QUOTE] no I think that's just bullshit. yep. but while we're on the subject, I don't see how it WOULDN'T boost the economy if cannabis was sold in like 150-gram bags for as cheap as 5 dollars, like candy basically.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.