Do you believe that War is anti-market?

[Anarchist420]

I sure as hell do. There are, however, idiots like Allen West and Michele Bachmann who think that war is not anti-capitalist.

I for one would like to see our socialist standing army abolished, and the MIC go out of business.

The only time war isn't completely anti-market is when it's for self-defense only and when it's done very efficiently and very inexpensively.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Totally pro.

All the medicine and treatments for our wounded soldiers fuels the medical practices market.

Weapons/ammo made by Americans guarantee jobs.

Merc companies like Black Water give former US Soldiers a chance to go back and kill without those awful rules of engagement.

Oh, and the tons of innocent deaths caused by American Soldiers will fuel future hate for our country, thus ensuring we will always be "terrorized".

 

[Munky]

War is profitable business, WTF are you talking about? Especially for banks financing both sides of the conflict.

 

[Anarchist420]

It's against the forces of the market because it's crony capitalism.

 

[Capt Caveman]

War is profitable business, WTF are you talking about? Especially for banks financing both sides of the conflict.

You're talking to a moran.

 

[Scotteq]

War is Pro - as long as you're on the winning side.

The trick is that you can't do it half ass'd, or you don't get the benefits.

 

[Thump553]

As an anarchist you only have to worry about one war-the one brought against you by your new conqueror. And they fully intend to profit off your new misery.

 

[her209]

War is an inefficient way to allocate and use resources. It may spur the engine of the economy, but so can just paying people to dig holes and fill them up. Also, the end goal of a war is typically to take something, e.g., land or what's on it, that does not belong to you.

 

[cwjerome]

Almost all economists will tell you war is a net loss for economy. It is. There may be slight gains in certain sectors, yet damaging as a whole. We are living in an era called the "long peace" and world economy has blossomed during this time. Globalization has taken hold, and as the world becomes ever smaller in time and distance and economic integration and expansion increases, the negative consequences of war become even greater to economic health.

Small-scale interventions may be slightly different.... not sure.

 

[Zebo]

Depends. Lots of people have profited from war. Nationally you could to Like if we killed everyone in Saudi and took their oil I'd say wed do well. You know old school style war like taking stuff & genocide like Ca AZ etc. As it is now it's a liability when amortized over the population. Assets make you money.

 

[wuliheron]

War isn't just about guns. In the west we talk about things like "psychological warfare" and whatnot, but we seldom discuss economic warfare. There's no real difference between shooting someone in the head and raising the price of commodities so much they starve to death. No real difference between supplying a dictator weapons and a billion dollars a year to maintain order and actually going in and occupying the place yourself. If we consider these things war then its obvious that when sides are nowhere near evenly matched war pays big time.

 

[ShawnD1]

War is profitable business, WTF are you talking about? Especially for banks financing both sides of the conflict.

Historically, you would never lend money to the losing side because their government would be wiped out and the winners would not honor the loser's debt :biggrin: