Marketwatch columnist and former war veteran Paul Farrell is aghast at politicians who are agitating for war in the guise of ‘stimulating the economy’
Mr. Farrell writes, (bold original)
Yes, I’m mad as hell again. I just read some bad news that should make every American mad as hell. In fact, two bad news items.
First, as a U.S. Marine vet, I got angry reading that there have been more military suicides than war deaths the past decade. Yes, more Iraq and Afghan war vets have killed themselves than were killed by America’s enemies in combat. And more are expected as we had more than two million serve in the two wars.
A soldier from the U.S. Army's Charlie Company, 1/12 Infantry, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division scans across the border at houses in Pakistan during a Sunday patrol near Dokalam village in Afghanistan's Kunar Province.
Second, if the economic, psychological, political and moral consequences of the past two wars aren’t bad enough, many politicians and candidates — some of whom never served in the armed forces — are proposing that the full Congress pass the Ryan budget and force Pentagon generals to spend billions more than they requested.
Mr. Farrell questions the underlying motives for such calls… (bold italics mine, bold original)
Treating war as an economic stimulus program became clear a decade ago in the early years of the Iraq war. That fact was stressed in a Huffington Post interview with Oliver Stone. Ryan Grim said that in a 2004 meeting President George W. Bush said to the Argentine prime minister: “All the economic growth that the U.S. has had, has been based on the different wars it had waged.”
Apparently that same ideology remains strong in today’s election politics.
Let’s put all this in the larger macroeconomic context. War should be about national defense. Wars should have nothing to do with scoring domestic political points. And yet, increasing the Pentagon budget has become a political hot button in today’s election drama.
This is insane: Do politicians plan to start new wars?
Ask yourself, are they already itching for a new war? After two exhausting wars? Eleven years? We put 2.3 million in Iraq and Afghanistan; 800,000 served multiple deployments, one of the big reasons for vet suicides. So why demand bigger budgets? Why in a time of national austerity? Why when they’re complaining about high taxes?
No, war shouldn’t be about domestic politics, but it is. And that’s bad news for taxpayers, for investors, for America’s values.
Somebody’s got to pay for all this. The taxes of all Americans will go up if the Senate passes the Ryan budget plan, forcing Pentagon generals to spend $554 billion in 2013, billions more than they requested. Plus it’ll add $6.2 trillion new debt and taxes over the next decade.
Yes, this is insane. A few private contractors will get richer but taxpayers will suffer in this zero-sum economics game.
National defense? No, it’s about getting rich, the rest pay the price
America is on a dangerous and costly path. Not just politicians. Americans love war, it’s in our genes. Congress spends over 50% our tax dollars on the Pentagon war machine. America spends 47% of the total military budgets of all nations in the world.
Why does the public tolerates such absurdities? Why do we hide this insanity deep in our collective conscience? Why are we planning new wars? Why do we see war as an economic stimulus program? The Iraq-Afghan “economic stimulus” strategy got us in the mess we’re in; are we really crazy enough to try it again?
Forget all the campaign rhetoric about national defense. That is not why our politicians want to spent trillions more on the Pentagon war machine. Politician are interested in reelection not national defense. They need votes and will keep military bases open because that means local jobs, satisfied voters.
They need campaign cash. Military contractors are great donors. Cutting war-related jobs is political suicide. So they pass big military budgets, waste billions on outdated weapon systems. Keep throwing money at the Pentagon war machine. Anything to get reelected. National defense is not a first priority; their job, their reelection is.
I share Mr. Farell’s revulsion
For me, it’s only politically brain dead people who really argue that destruction (war or natural catastrophes) serves as economic ‘stimulus’.
Post destruction economic activities extrapolates to REPLACEMENT and NOT VALUE ADDED. Yet loss of lives CANNOT be replaced. And deaths along with incapacitated citizens, decreases productivity. This is essentially the Broken Window Fallacy.
And it would be a mistake to relate war with creative destruction. Innovation or advances of technology, which renders obsolete old products or business models, is the outcome of markets in pursuit of consumer satisfaction.
During war, consumers become subordinated to the political forces, particularly through taxes, price controls and rationing, as in World War II.
The point is in war, the economy produces guns, tanks and warplanes and NOT TVs, telephones, private cars. This simply shows how naïve and absurd any such supposed economic comparison is. And this also shows of the dangers of making analysis based on statistical aggregates which tend to discount the real costs, particularly the human factor.
During the World War II, Keynesian economists worried about what would happen to the US economy once the war would culminate.
Then the Keynesian high priest Paul Samuelson quoted by Professor David R. Henderson
When this war comes to an end, more than one out of every two workers will depend directly or indirectly upon military orders. We shall have some 10 million service men to throw on the labor market. [DRH comment: he nailed that number.] We shall have to face a difficult reconversion period during which current goods cannot be produced and layoffs may be great. Nor will the technical necessity for reconversion necessarily generate much investment outlay in the critical period under discussion whatever its later potentialities. The final conclusion to be drawn from our experience at the end of the last war is inescapable--were the war to end suddenly within the next 6 months, were we again planning to wind up our war effort in the greatest haste, to demobilize our armed forces, to liquidate price controls, to shift from astronomical deficits to even the large deficits of the thirties--then there would be ushered in the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced. [italics in original]
Of course, the end of World War II turned out in total contrast to Samuelson’s prediction, the US economy boomed.
Today, brain dead economics turn the table to tells us that the boom that followed World War II had been due to ‘stimulus’. This is a wonderful example of verbal manipulation.
On moral grounds, how is it righteous for people to wish ill for the others? People who really see war as economic growth ought to go to the battlefront, along with their families, and fight the wars themselves. The reason for their chutzpah is because they know someone else will do the dying for them. The same applies to any destruction as stimulus. Talk about pretentious moral high grounds.
Politicians urge for war because war is the health of the state. Aside from the war as the origin the state, wars provide the pretext for the expansion of the state or the “ratchet effect” as coined by Professor Robert Higgs.
Professor Art Carden explains,
In Crisis and Leviathan, Higgs argues that during a crisis a "ratchet effect" produces net increases in government discretion that are not completely reversed after the crisis. Two things happen when government intervenes. First, the bureaucracy naturally tends to expand beyond its stated goals — mission creep. Second, intervention alters incentives; that is, the creation of a bureaucracy to address some problem also spawns a rent-seeking pressure group with interests that will prevent reversion to the status quo ante.
The bottom line is that war as stimulus has never been about economics but about propaganda to expand the power of the state and of the economic interests of those attached to the state or the political clients or the cronies.
For those wishing for war, be reminded of the Golden rule (Matthew 7:12)
Therefore all things whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
If not they deserve this.
No comments:
Post a Comment