[thechat] Opinion on War

[Judah McAuley]

Hugh Blair wrote:
>> Because nothing helps the economy like a good, old-fashioned war.  At
>> least, this is what I presume to be his train of thought.
>>
>> If a war boosts the economy and creates jobs during difficult
>> times, people might be more inclined to ignore the more nagging
>> problems...
>
> Me thinks this time will be an exception if we start a war. Over all
> the economy probably won't be help, instead it probably will hurt.
> Certain sectors might get a boost (bomb building etc.) but the
> general population might just pull in their horns and play a wait-
> and-see when it comes to expansion.

It's not going to be an exception, its just that wars have changed.  The
rule of "war builds the economy" was coined during a different time of
war.  Wars used to be long, drawn out affairs that involved lots of
conventional weapons and drew a large number of people from the general
(non-military) populace away from domestic employment and into the
military.  This had the result of increasing demand by the government
(for steel, food supplies, transportation, clothing, etc.) and
simulatneously shrinking the workforce.  The shrinking of the workforce
brought higher salaries and brought more "non-traditional" workers (such
as women) into the workforce.  The overall net effect was a government
sponsored boost of the economy over the course of several years.

That kind of war hasn't happened since Vietnam (certainly) and arguably
not since Korea.  Now our wars involve a standing army and high tech
weapons.  They have been over pretty quickly.  We don't add a million
private sector workers to the military when we go fight.  We don't have
to expand domestic production to meet the needs of all those people we
sent off to war.

The current type of war increases the amount of money going to  defense
contractors for more high tech weapons and to energy producers to fuel
all the additional troop transportation, jet sorties, etc.  That money
is not funneled into the general economy.  And war causes stock market
jitters and drives up energy prices which contributes to a depression of
the broader economy.  In other words, this type of war is good for
campaign contributors and bad for the economy as a whole.

The Gulf War (I) was the same way.  The negative effect on the economy
was a large contributor to George the First's defeat in the 1992
election.  I just don't see how it can reasonably be argued anymore that
war is good for the economy (let alone anything else).

Judah