Do they? Why else would Obama send 30k troops to the middle east?
Do they? Why else would Obama send 30k troops to the middle east?
uhh no.
it did back then. don't know about now.
it would get us out of the depression but obama has to cut spending in other areas like the 65 year long occupation of palestine for instance. he can't keep blowing trillions on lost imperialist causes, and neglect american industry and workers. it seems he's under the spell of the same nazi-zionists that every president since truman has been suckered by. it sure has been as waste. the middle east is another vietnam.
These last two wars have gone a long way to putting us into this recession.
It would if the USA still made all their supplies domestically. Now our wars just fund other countries at our expense.
Farewell great US war machine.
PT Loser wrote:
It would if the USA still made all their supplies domestically. Now our wars just fund other countries at our expense.
Farewell great US war machine.
There it is.
How could spending more help us if the money isn't spent on our own businesses (Blackwater excepted)?
The American people rallied behind the war effort during WW2, and everyone had a job because so many were going overseas. Now, the country is split on our wars, we have only professional military being sent to the middle east, and on top of that we don't need the kind of made in the USA war material this time.
No.
WW2 lowered the unemployment rate, but not in an economically responsible way. Where did the money come from to pay the soldiers? Taxpayers. That's not a very efficient system.
I think the myth that WW2 got us out of the depression is never going to die, which is unfortunate. It's just another example of the broken window fallacy. It's akin to people saying that the destruction from a hurricane stimulates the economy due to the rebuilding efforts.
dsfghdsafg wrote:
Do they? Why else would Obama send 30k troops to the middle east?
I got into an argument with some hard headed conservatives several weeks ago about this issue. I said we would be much better off econmically if we brought the troops home from Iraq, and they said it would be a disaster.
Their argument was that if we brought those troops home they wouldn't have a job and that unemployment would climb even higher.
I, on the other hand, knew better. Unfortunately they weren't interested in listening to common sense. It costs approximately $400,000 a year to keep a soldier in Iraq. If we brought all the troops home and paid them $100,000 to stay at home and play Xbox we would have $300,000 per soldier per year, or about 40 billion dollars a year (my numbers may be a bit off). That's money that can stay in the real economy to actually grow productive jobs. Even if the soldiers couldn't find jobs, which I don't buy, the labor force is huge, so unemployment would only go up about a tenth of a percent.
Sending soldiers overseas is a drain on the economy, not a benefit. One might make the argument that it is worth it in some cases, but it certainly isn't worth the price we're paying now.
What created the great depression in the first place? WWI?
US combat systems are all engineered and manufactured here in the US. The government (defense spending) keeps many engineering and manufacturing businesses afloat by working on defense systems/components. These are high-paying jobs too, not a guy holding a sign for road work. They strive to work with a diverse workforce as well (minority-ownded, female-owned, etc.). The money initially comes from the US tax base, which is why I never understood the old notion of Dems "cut defense spending" and Reps "increase defense spending". If anything, wouldn't Dems be for the idea of funding jobs with taxpayer money?
Rocafella wrote:
What created the great depression in the first place? WWI?
Federal reserve policy got the ball rolling and then government policies starting with Hoover and continuing with FDR kept the depression going.
Mtn Dew wrote:
No.
WW2 lowered the unemployment rate, but not in an economically responsible way. Where did the money come from to pay the soldiers? Taxpayers. That's not a very efficient system.
I think the myth that WW2 got us out of the depression is never going to die, which is unfortunate. It's just another example of the broken window fallacy. It's akin to people saying that the destruction from a hurricane stimulates the economy due to the rebuilding efforts.
Are you mad?
From virtually nothing, the USA produced such prodigious quantities of war material, armadas of aircraft, ships, tanks, guns that the Axis forces and even their allies could scarcely believe was possible.
Before the war, the US had a reasonably sized Navy, but her army and air force were laughably tiny compared to the Continental equivalents.
She came out of WW2 with by far, the greatest Naval and Air Forces in the world and an army second to that of the USSR.
She also ended that war, being, again by far, the richest nation on earth, able to finance the recovery of the whole of Western Europe, not only her allies, but her recent enemies, Germany and Japan.
Every person in the civilised world at that time looked in envy and awe at the wealth and life-style of the average American and desired to emulate them. - (Bit different now)
I would suggest, the average American was several hundred per-cent better off just after WW2 than before.
Now?
Subsequent wars, as with Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, because they were fought for all the wrong reasons, in fact, shouldn’t have been fought at all - have produced a drain on the American economy.
Britain, within a few months of starting WW2, found herself becoming bankrupt and had to finance the war from then on by loans from the US and the counties of the Empire.
The US is in a similar position today - the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, because America doesn’t create the wealth necessary to finance those wars these day - they have to be financed, (as with the whole American economy) by borrowing from other countries.
Massive wartime spending set in motion a permanent recovery for the US economy after the great depression. However, the real reason the US was prosperous in the post-war period was because the US was untouched in WWII (except for Hawaii) and the rest of the world was destroyed by WWII. US manufacturing had virtually no competition in the post war period. Thus, any economic benefit from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will fall well short of the kind of economic boom WWII bestowed on the US because the US will not see a rise in manufacturing and exports.
FDR's policies didn't bring the United States out of the Great Depression. In fact, they made things much worse. It was World War II that got the United States out of the depression.
Precious Roy wrote:
Massive wartime spending set in motion a permanent recovery for the US economy after the great depression. However, the real reason the US was prosperous in the post-war period was because the US was untouched in WWII (except for Hawaii) and the rest of the world was destroyed by WWII. US manufacturing had virtually no competition in the post war period. Thus, any economic benefit from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will fall well short of the kind of economic boom WWII bestowed on the US because the US will not see a rise in manufacturing and exports.
Very true. World War 2 got the US out of the Depression in that the destruction allowed the US to jump ahead of other countries postwar.
The actualy manufacturing didn't help the US. The only benefit we had from the war itself would be at the expense of Europe. It's like living next door to a drug addict. If you're loaning them money (and getting it back) or selling them drugs it certainly helps you.
But the US building ships and planes for its own use in a war does not a healthy economy make. A society built on war cannot last and is not truly wealthy. Building weapons and killing people isn't the way to prosperity.
If wars get you out of depressions why are we in one now? We're certainly spending a lot of money.
Even during peacetime, why not simply ramp up defense spending and draft 10-12 million unemployed people and send them to the middle of the Pacific Ocean? We would drop the bombs in the water and the soldiers could just hang out on the boats. Maybe they could fire in the sea if they got bored. I mean, if producing bullets and ships makes a country wealthy why don't we do that whenever the economy goes downhill?
Why not do something productive with the soldiers? Bring them home and do a massive public works campaign, disable factories, clean up trash or whatever.
not a commie wrote:
Why not do something productive with the soldiers? Bring them home and do a massive public works campaign, disable factories, clean up trash or whatever.
While that would still be a waste, it would be cheaper than keeping them overseas. Public works don't stimulate a real economy either.
Taking somebody's money and giving it out based on politics is no way to run an economic. People must be allowed to use their money as they see fit so long as they don't violate anyone else's property rights. Central planners simply cannot efficiently and effectively allocate resources.