War is a racket

[bleubird]

I should clarify.Most of what Smedly was on about were wars before the second world war.He did not live to see Korea,Vietnam,Iran,Iraq.

 

[bilby]

War actually seems to be a flaw in human nature. We've had war since since pretty much human socieities started forming, so it isn't just about corporate profit.

Good point. We seem to like the excitement and tribal solidarity. In our civilized societies we replace our tribal skirmishes with Friday night football skirmishes.

Why wait for Friday?

 

[NobleSavage]

Sometimes, and partially. There is usually a mix of motives. Replace money with resources and it's a little more explanatory. Add in a good dose of religion, ideology, tribalism, morality, racism, xenophobia, etc. Any one can be the spark that ignites the others.

You could make a decent argument that money prevents war through trade.

That argument was certainly considered compelling in the years leading up to 1914. When people expressed concern about the build up of armed strength in Europe, it was repeatedly pointed out that the huge mutual benefits of international trade on the continent had rendered war unthinkable, and that there was nothing much to worry about.

It's definitely not a perfect argument, but people smarter than I am still consider it.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/matthew-o-jackson-can-trade-prevent-war

Their findings coincide with two major global trends since World War II: From 1950 to 2000, the incidence of interstate war has decreased nearly tenfold compared with the period from 1850 to 1949. At the same time, since 1950 international trade networks have increased nearly fourfold, becoming significantly more dense. "In the period before World War II, it was hard to find a stable set of alliances," says Jackson. The probability of a lasting alliance was about 60%. "You have almost a coin-flip chance that the alliance won't still be there in five years," he says. In Europe in the 1870s, for example, German chancellor Otto von Bismarck sought peace with "balance of power" diplomacy, which crumbled leading up to World War I. "Then in the past 50 years or so, there's been a surprising global stability." The impact of economic interdependence is especially apparent in Europe, Jackson says, where the Eurozone has promoted not only peace and increased trade among nations, but also labor mobility.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because the same profiteers who got rich from the war would most likely have been able to make even more money in the peace in that same period.

The makers of bombs?

There were many individuals, mostly in the US, that made a fortune during WWII.

You can't get completely destroyed like the Germans and expect to come out on top.

A person with the connections and capital to exploit the opportunity of war would most likely have had the connections and capital to exploit any situation, war or otherwise. The markets are constantly changing. The difference is that during a war, there´s a hell of a lot less opportunities to exploit. The market and capitalism isn´t a zero sum game. Everybody can all win at the same time. And everybody can also all lose, which they do during war.

Also... important note, this is a hypothetical economics argument. This is impossible to verify or test.

 

[angelo]

Profits are made during and after wars. An example: Ferdinand Porche. During the war manufactured tanks.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Profits are made during and after wars. An example: Ferdinand Porche. During the war manufactured tanks.

Porsche was a bad example. He was approached the the German government because he was already the most well known automobile designer. Just imagine how well he had done if there hadn´t been a war. By designing the tanks he was just doing the best of a shit situation.

Without war Porsche would have had a bigger market for his cars. The fact that he was well situated to get the tank contract meant that he would have been equally well situated in any situation. Being successful in a capitalist market is mostly just about having access to capital. Which he had, with or without the war.

 

[bleubird]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
I hate to bring up this old canard,but.

 

[untermensche]

The makers of bombs?

There were many individuals, mostly in the US, that made a fortune during WWII.

You can't get completely destroyed like the Germans and expect to come out on top.

A person with the connections and capital to exploit the opportunity of war would most likely have had the connections and capital to exploit any situation, war or otherwise. The markets are constantly changing. The difference is that during a war, there´s a hell of a lot less opportunities to exploit. The market and capitalism isn´t a zero sum game. Everybody can all win at the same time. And everybody can also all lose, which they do during war.

Also... important note, this is a hypothetical economics argument. This is impossible to verify or test.

This is hand waving, not anything rational.

Many US weapons manufacturers have made a fortune over the last 14 years.

A fortune they would not have made without useless war.

They don't know how to make that money any other way.

War is extremely profitable, to some.

 

[angelo]

Wars have also produced many innovative inventions like radar!

 

[DrZoidberg]

A person with the connections and capital to exploit the opportunity of war would most likely have had the connections and capital to exploit any situation, war or otherwise. The markets are constantly changing. The difference is that during a war, there´s a hell of a lot less opportunities to exploit. The market and capitalism isn´t a zero sum game. Everybody can all win at the same time. And everybody can also all lose, which they do during war.

Also... important note, this is a hypothetical economics argument. This is impossible to verify or test.

This is hand waving, not anything rational.

Many US weapons manufacturers have made a fortune over the last 14 years.

A fortune they would not have made without useless war.

They don't know how to make that money any other way.

War is extremely profitable, to some.

WTF are you talking about? Weapon manufacturing involves the exact same chemistry and physics as any heavy industry. Of course weapon designers and manufacturers can make money in a peaceful market, just as effectively or more effectively.

The fact that there are some weapon manufacturers who have made a fortune is irrelevant. They could still have made more money if engaged in peaceful production. It´s not like people during peace stop wanting to buy useless shit because they´re satisfied with life.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wars have also produced many innovative inventions like radar!

The implications of these kinds of statements is that we would never have been able to invent it if it wasn´t for war. Not true. Yes, it´s true that research pushed toward the extremes is more likely to produce useful break-throughs that later end up being valuable for peace time industry. But the fact that a war time application has peaceful applications suggest that sooner or later the market at peace would also have invented it. In this case probably sooner.

There was a peaceful evolution of radio technology right from Herz onward. We were step by step getting closer to radar all the time. Around 1915 or so all nations had all the required science freely available as well as the technology to invent radar. At any point the break-through could have happened. It´s actually astonishing how long time it took. More likely WW1 (and to some degree WW2) slowed down the development of radar by diverting resources elsewhere. In a recession people don´t travel as much and don´t buy as much. The main peaceful driving force behind radar technology and it´s technological innovation was tracking the movement of ships and aeroplanes.

The fact that military secrecy kept a lid on radar technology until well after WW2 suggests that wars acted to slow down peaceful technological innovation of this technology.

 

[untermensche]

This is hand waving, not anything rational.

Many US weapons manufacturers have made a fortune over the last 14 years.

A fortune they would not have made without useless war.

They don't know how to make that money any other way.

War is extremely profitable, to some.

WTF are you talking about? Weapon manufacturing involves the exact same chemistry and physics as any heavy industry. Of course weapon designers and manufacturers can make money in a peaceful market, just as effectively or more effectively.

The fact that there are some weapon manufacturers who have made a fortune is irrelevant. They could still have made more money if engaged in peaceful production. It´s not like people during peace stop wanting to buy useless shit because they´re satisfied with life.

WTF are you talking about?

First you say that war is not profitable, now you say that all these huge profits made by weapons manufacturers are irrelevant.

You're all over the place.

 

[DrZoidberg]

WTF are you talking about? Weapon manufacturing involves the exact same chemistry and physics as any heavy industry. Of course weapon designers and manufacturers can make money in a peaceful market, just as effectively or more effectively.

The fact that there are some weapon manufacturers who have made a fortune is irrelevant. They could still have made more money if engaged in peaceful production. It´s not like people during peace stop wanting to buy useless shit because they´re satisfied with life.

WTF are you talking about?

First you say that war is not profitable, now you say that all these huge profits made by weapons manufacturers are irrelevant.

You're all over the place.

You´re misrepresenting me IMHO. My argument is that all actors in a market are more likely to get rich in peace time than war time. The market isn´t static. Engineers and researchers will work in whatever fields is the most lucrative.

The fact that war manufacturers have gotten rich from making weapons doesn´t prove that they hadn´t made even more money from peaceful production.

 

[untermensche]

WTF are you talking about?

First you say that war is not profitable, now you say that all these huge profits made by weapons manufacturers are irrelevant.

You're all over the place.

You´re misrepresenting me IMHO. My argument is that all actors in a market are more likely to get rich in peace time than war time. The market isn´t static. Engineers and researchers will work in whatever fields is the most lucrative.

The fact that war manufacturers have gotten rich from making weapons doesn´t prove that they hadn´t made even more money from peaceful production.

If your point is that the manufacture of all these weapons is a huge waste of resources I agree.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You´re misrepresenting me IMHO. My argument is that all actors in a market are more likely to get rich in peace time than war time. The market isn´t static. Engineers and researchers will work in whatever fields is the most lucrative.

The fact that war manufacturers have gotten rich from making weapons doesn´t prove that they hadn´t made even more money from peaceful production.

If your point is that the manufacture of all these weapons is a huge waste of resources I agree.

Exactly!

 

[angelo]

Imagine if all the money spent on making wars and the weapons research and manufacturing was put into space exploration. I think we would surely have had a colony on Mars and perhaps beyond by now.

But then again, it's an industry that employs millions of people.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Imagine if all the money spent on making wars and the weapons research and manufacturing was put into space exploration. I think we would surely have had a colony on Mars and perhaps beyond by now.

But then again, it's an industry that employs millions of people.

Let´s go with this:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS

For simplicity, let´s say globally we spend about 3% if all our GDP on defence, it´s low-balling it. Also, we´re at a historical low point for defence expenditure.

Let´s say we globally put about 0.2% of all our GDP on all research and development. That´s not just space. That´s all science.

Also... let´s ignore that all dictatorships spend a lot of effort manipulating what statistics they produce.

If the world of science had reliable and consistent access to that kind of money, we´d have a Dyson Sphere by now. Perhaps a slight exaggeration.

 

[Valjean]

War profits an elite few. Those who actually fight these wars, and the population in general, usually loose on the deal.
And let's stop calling it "defense." Maybe Switzerland can claim a defensive military, but the US defense department, for example, should gp back to calling itself the Department of War.

 

[arkirk]

....But that said, it´s virtually impossible to make a profit from war....

Impossible for individuals?

Impossible for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater. and thousands of contractors of all types? No, Zoidberg you are wrong. War is quite the corrupting profit machine. War mongers are always rich and powerful people and organizations that stand to PROFIT FROM WAR. In today's world, they promote the wars FOR THE PROFIT...sometimes for access to other people's resources, but always for Profit.

It is impossible for a Socialist country to justify a war for profit because in a society where resources are commonly owned, the allocation of resources for war takes away from the citizenship and expends materials in the act of destruction.

Capitalists on the other hand build a mental little red fence are what they think is theirs and want more of everything inside their little red fence. The society in which they exist and which has provided all their wealth is NOT A PART OF THEIR CONSIDERATIONS.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Impossible for individuals?

Impossible for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater. and thousands of contractors of all types? No, Zoidberg you are wrong. War is quite the corrupting profit machine. War mongers are always rich and powerful people and organizations that stand to PROFIT FROM WAR. In today's world, they promote the wars FOR THE PROFIT...sometimes for access to other people's resources, but always for Profit.

I´m guessing there´s some sort of underlying economical theory for how this profit if generated? I´m all ears.

It is impossible for a Socialist country to justify a war for profit because in a society where resources are commonly owned, the allocation of resources for war takes away from the citizenship and expends materials in the act of destruction.

That begs the question; what have the socialist countries been starting all their wars for? It seems to me like your argument is missing the second half.

Capitalists on the other hand build a mental little red fence are what they think is theirs and want more of everything inside their little red fence. The society in which they exist and which has provided all their wealth is NOT A PART OF THEIR CONSIDERATIONS.

I´m confused. Is Iraq inside the little red fence? I don´t understand where your metaphorical borders begin or end.

The last 150 years or so it seems to me like USA has been starting all manner of wars primarily to spread capitalism. In a free market there´s an advantage to the strongest player.... naturally. And this being USA it easy to see how promoting free market economics has been motivated primarily by American greed. But USA has done precious little outright theft or property and land. Ie, "what was yours is now mine".

It seems to me primarily about an American ideological conflation of liberal democracy and capitalism that has been the driving motor behind USA´s wars. They behave as if they have a right to spread this gospel all over the globe. I see no fence? Metaphorical or otherwise.