Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
Broder isn't suggesting, of course, that Obama should incite a war to get reelected. He's just suggesting that Obama should incite a war and that his reelection will be a happy bonus. What a relief!
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Naaaahhhh. If you say you want to invade Canada, half of the parliament (the Libs, NDP and the Bloc) would surrender, 'cause big O is sooo cool you know. And I'm not even going to talk about what type of coverage the CBC would do about those redneck nationalists opposing progress.
That would be too short of a war to bring any stimulus.
That is pretty fucked up. If there are reasons to go to war with Iran, those don't involve our economy or Obam's popularity. What is really sick about this thing is that Broder admits that he thinks Iran is a threat and going to war with them is justified. But, that is not the reason he thinks we should go to war. That is just fucked up. I guess if bombing a country that is not a threat would help the economy and improve Obama's popularity, he would be all for it. Or conversely, if bombing Iran wouldn't do that, he would be okay with doing nothing and letting them terrorize the middle east.
There may or may not be good reasons to go to war with Iran. But, Walt is a notorious and disgusting anti-Semite. So whatever the reasons are, I am not going to waste my time listening to his opinions on them.
Sorry, but him and Mersheimer are no longer welcome in serious or polite company. At least not in my book.
No but thinking that our policies are driven evil machinations of the Jews does. And that is what he claimed. I think he is a first class dirtbag. I don't care if he does agree with me on some things.
All Walt and Mearsheimer said in "The Israel Lobby" is that the Israel Lobby is a powerful lobby that does influence our foreign policy and they are right on that.
Even though AIPAC openly states that their intention is to lobby Congress for Israel's benefit, you're not allowed to say that AIPAC openly lobbies Congress for Israel's benefit.
Just for shits and giggles, I'd like to point out that Japan considered the attack on Pearl Harbor to be a defensive move against American aggression. Sort of an early application of the Bush Doctrine.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.
I get it. What you're saying is if we didn't attack Iran, we could have attacked, say Canada. Which would have been equally productive, yet, perhaps easier.
Some Canadians really believe the US embassy in Ottawa is a 2000 foot deep secret bunker filled with black ops, armed to the teeth and ready to take Canada at any moment.
Some VFW branches in the US are large enough to take Canada down. You hand out enough beer at the VFW skeet shooting competition, and it just might happen.
At the age some of the VFW members I've met are, it would have to be beer. You hand them a bottle of Jaegermeister and they'd say, "Jayger mister?" Is this some Nazi shit?"
In reality, the Canadian invasion team really only consists of some mid-level clerk with a Swiss Army knife. Like anyone needs a bunker filled with black ops troops to take over Canada!
Inside the mind of David Broder: Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II[...]
World, meet yet another nitwit who espouses the Broken Windows Fallacy.
With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs[...]But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century.
Yes, just like the nation rallied around George H. W. Bush ("The Elder") during the 1st Iraq War and got him reelected!
Someone might want to explain to Brooks that every dollar we spend on tanks is a dollar we can't spend on computers and refrigerators and other things that makes life livable. Seriously, how does someone this stupid get a weekly column in a major newspaper? This is so stupid as to be unworthy of response.
Broder. but everyone is missing the point. None of this pissant 150,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're taling a draft. Significant improvement in employment. Plus, no pissant 5 or 6 thousand dead. We're talking big numbers. WE want a BIG WAR! USA USA USA!
Ah! But then how would the formerly industrialized world make money or wealth with which to buy our products? With money which our banks or government would loan them? And where would those banks get that money - by simply expanding the supply of money and credit?
Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
Actually, WW@ did NOT "resolve" the economic crisis of the Great Depression, it actually deepened it, as installed capacity was churning out tanks and bullets instead of food, clothes, fuel, silk stockings, cars or appliances. People's standard of living during the war years were actually WORSE than during the whole depression, as there was no rationing during the 1930's.
What ended the Depression was the post-war federal spending cuts and the increased investment by the private sector - the recovery actually was in full swing from 1948!
They say he has told the establishment GOP guys that he's not as anti-endless-war as his dad is. I think it's 50/50 that's a lie he's using to play them, and once he has the seat he uses it to go berserk. We'll see.
Rand "The Beserker" Paul. I like it. I think they should get Jay and Silent Bob's Russian buddy to come sing it as the intro song when he takes the stage everywhere he goes.
The spending on wars certainly contributed to the crash. War with Iran would be the final nail in the coffin. As Ron Paul said in so many words that there would go our dollar if we go to war with Iran.
"The spending on wars certainly contributed to the crash."
What evidence is there of that? IS it your opinion that the housing bubble was some how driven by spending on wars? Or that the Bush deficits caused Lehman Brothers to go broke or created the derivatives markets?
I don't see one shred of evidence or even how spending on wars helped create the asset bubble that caused the crash.
Easy money policies of the Fed helped to create the housing bubble. Easy money policies were created to pay for big government which included the costly wars. The wars also drove up the price of oil which contributed to job losses. It's all interconnected.
We had easy money a long time before the wars. And the easy money policies continued and were intensified as a result of the tech bubble collapsing. Even if 9-11 had never happened and we hadn't spent one dime on any war, we would have had the same monetary policies, the same asset bubble and the same collapse.
And do you honestly think Congress wouldn't have just spent the money they didn't spend on wars somewhere else? Sorry but your bugbears are not responsible for all the evils in the world.
All I'm saying is that our military spending is greatly contributing to our economic woes. I know people who want America to be the policeman of the world or who lust for wars don't want to accept that.
"All I'm saying is that our military spending is greatly contributing to our economic woes."
And all I am saying is there is absolutely no evidence of that and any honest counter factual look at the 00s reveals that even if we hadn't had the wars we still would be in largely the same position we are today.
And all I am saying is there is absolutely no evidence of that and any honest counter factual look at the 00s reveals that even if we hadn't had the wars we still would be in largely the same position we are today.
John, that's just silly.
On September 12, 2001, two people made separate but interrelated decisions:
Alan Greenspan said, "Oh shit, there might be a deficit" and started positioning the Fed for a series of rate cuts.
George Bush said, "It's clobberin' time!" and started moving pieces around on the board for a pair of wars in the Middle East.
Are you really going to sit there and argue that if these decisions had not been made in exactly the way they were made, we'd still be in exactly the same position we're currently in?
That's, like, the anti-chaos theory. You're positing a historical determinism so total that not only is history not impacted by butterfly wings, it's not impacted by major political and economic events.
Fluffy you are just silly. First Greenspan was committed to easy money long before 9-11. And he was committed to easy money to counteract the Tech bubble collapsing. Do you think that absent 9-11, Greenspan would have been another Volker? If you do, you have gone full retard on this subject.
Second, I didn't know you loved Republicans so much. To beleive you argument you have to believe that the Republicans in Congress and Bush would have not spent the money spent on wars elsewhere and would have instead used it to reduce the deficit. That is just living in a fantasy land. They would have used the money for more pork and more compassionate conservatism. The deficit would have been exactly the same. The money just would have gone to different places.
You are just silly on this topic. We could tell you that the war is the cause of the bedbug outbreak and you would believe it. You really can't think straight about this topic.
Dude, you are under the misapprehension that I start out as anti-war, and come up with spending arguments based on that position.
It's actually the reverse. If you can devise a way that we can bomb the shit out of Afghanistan and have it for free, fuck if I care what you do.
Turn back time and give me the short, inexpensive Iraq war that was sold to us in the press, and I'll sign on the dotted line.
The civil liberties impact of the wars offends me. True. But we would have had that based on the WoT, whether or not we kept ground troops deployed in the Middle East long term.
But to me the really galling thing about the wars is the fact that their immense dollar cost means nothing to conservatives, because to conservatives dick size is involved. And even if there are cheaper ways to get better results, and even if we could have strategically repositioned ourselves to continue military conflict but do it in ways that would have cost less and committed us less, conservatives are genetically incapable of considering that because someone might accuse them of having a small dick.
So what? It is one thing to say they were too expensive. It is quite another thing to say they are what caused the asset bubbles and financial collapse. We are not talking about the former. We are talking about the latter. Quit moving the goal posts. The debate is not about if they were too expensive or worth the cost. The debate is about whether we would have had the asset bubble and attendant financial collapse without them. And on that point, you are just out to lunch.
No way, babe. That WAS the discussion, until YOU tried to change the discussion to make it "Fluffy comes up with his spending positions because he's anti-war". As soon as you barfed that nonsense in MULTIPLE sub-threads, the discussion became whatever the fuck I wanted it to be.
You are being such a Krugman. Despite the fact that we had an asset price bubble following an expansionary monetary policy undertaken in a time of war spending and deficits, there's just not enough proof of cause and effect for you. Just like the Krugster, you have to drag out the positivism and Cartesian doubt every time the fact set is inconvenient. Gosh, dude, I'm so sorry that worldwide economic disaster got in the way of your Trotskyite plan for worldwide transformative war.
It was always about the specific. My original post
What evidence is there of that? IS it your opinion that the housing bubble was some how driven by spending on wars? Or that the Bush deficits caused Lehman Brothers to go broke or created the derivatives markets?
I don't see one shred of evidence or even how spending on wars helped create the asset bubble that caused the crash.
I was talking about defense spending as it contributed to this bubble. That is about as specific as you can get. You just jumped in and agreed with bookworm without thinking because you can't help yourself. When it comes to the wars in the middle east, you really do have some form of mild PTSD.
True. And we would have both easy money and deficits with or with out the wars. To believe otherwise you have to believe that without the wars Congress would have somehow found the time or the energy to reign in the Fed or would have not just spent the money saved by not having wars somewhere else.
To believe otherwise you have to believe that without the wars Congress would have somehow found the time or the energy to reign in the Fed or would have not just spent the money saved by not having wars somewhere else.
We might have had the easy money, but probably would have had less of it.
And I see no reason to believe that the off-budget monies appropriated for the wars would have been appropriated for other uses, given the fact that we had divided government at the time.
The very fact that our Congress felt enough shame to keep the spending off-budget argues against it.
Now, don't get me wrong. W was a moron, and he might have found a way to be incompetent in different ways instead. I guess we can't know for sure. But after a decade of political consensus around deficit reduction, the idea that W would just wake up one day and say, "Woo-hoo! Let's spend a trillion bucks on shit!" in the absence of a war to justify it seems outlandish to me.
W ran on compasionate conservatism. He gave the world NCLB and Medicare Part D. The Congress was being run by Murchoski and Abramhoff. They would have absolutely spent that money and what they didn't spend, they would have taken in tax cuts. Since when did the deficit not go up when one party owned the entire government?
The war caused a massive disruption in oil supplies and contributed to high oil prices. Spikes in the price of oil consistently lead to economic crashes.
No it didn't. The price of oil didn't spike for any length of time after the invasion of Iraq. The price of oil only went up in 2007. And that was after Iraq was back up producing more oil than it did pre-war. And the collapse was in 2008, five years after the invasion and years after the worst has been seen in Iraq.
A 150% increase in the real price of oil between 2003 and 2006 isn't a spike? That's more than the rise of housing prices in that same time period and the real estate boom was a bubble*. There was the crazy high spike in 2008, but to say that regional disruptions and saber rattling Iran had nothing to do with the craziness of the oil markets is naive.
* It's also more than the rise of the 10 city composite from 2000 to the peak.
Oil production increased at an annualized rate of 0.67% from 2003-2009* compared to an annual growth rate of 0.91% from 1997-2003. So the growth rate was about 2/3 what it was after the war of what it was before the war. You can play with the numbers all you would like to validate your wasteful war, but it's not going to make Iraq anything more than a waste of American blood, reputation and money.
Oil didn't spike until May of 2008. And that spike had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. It did go up from 2003 until 2007. But, production went up consistently in the mid 00s.
What evidence is there of [the spending on wars certainly contributed to the crash]? IS it your opinion that the housing bubble was some how driven by spending on wars?
John, bookworm didn't say the wars contributed totally to the crash, only that it contributed.
Considering that instead of letting people KEEP THEIR GODDAMMEND HARD-EARNED CASH, the FedGov took it at bayonet point from us and squandered it on imperial wars, then the reasoning that in some part this plundering of our wallets contributed to the crash is not unreasonable.
I don't see one shred of evidence or even how spending on wars helped create the asset bubble that caused the crash.
It certainly didn't HELP anybody to avoid it. Instead of squandering money on imperial wars, people could have kept MORE of their GODDAMEND HARD-EARNED CASH and save enough for a juicier downpayment. Just sayin'.
And if we didn't spend so much money on unecessary military spending, we would have more money available for other things which would improve our economy. Why can't conservatives see this? I guess they're only fiscally responsible until it comes to financing their precious wars that they thrive on.
It's fortunate that I am not a conservative, as I don't subscribe to the notion that wars are "necessary" nor that the productive (i.e. us) have to subsidize the non-productive (i.e. bureaucrats and those on the dole.)
Again you miss the point. Even if the wars had not happened, we still would have had the same asset bubble.
Possibly, but without wars, the economy would have been in better shape than without them. When you have the productive pretty much subsidizing the UNproductive (as soldiers produce NOTHING OF FUCKING VALUE, AT ALL), you cannot say the productive have more wherewithal to weather a crisis than if those soldiers were here making some ACTUAL FUCKING STUFF that people can wear, eat or drive, for a GODDAMNED FUCKING CHANGE.
I hope the emphatic nature of those words drives home the point.
Nothing of value at all? Really? Why is it, then, that in the absence of a government army, private ones invariably spring up?
Does security really have no value? Excess spending on security is wasteful, certainly, but it's pretty goddamn stupid to say that an army has zero value.
I see you've been drinking the neocon koolaid, Holy Cow. It all depends on how you calculate costs. I've seen figures which when all military related expenses are included, the percentage of military spending is closer to around 50%
Your facts are wrong. The DoD budget is $667B out of a $3.5T budget. It's 19% of the budget, not less than 5%. It also doesn't include other defense related charges like the VA, NASA (military satellites), DoE (nukes), and DHS & State Dept stuff that's related to defense.
Dumb question: are there contemporaneous public statements from FDR himself or establishment brain trusters pushing for entering WWII in order to boost the economy?
I wonder, at the time, would that have been seen as either completely stoopid or at least an unbelievably ugly calculation best not uttered in public?
Is the "total-war-saved-the-economy" idea a revisionist take, or were people as stupid then as they are now?
Also from the article:
"In what respects is he (Obama) enduringly superior? Let's start with the basics. He is much smarter than his challengers in either party, better able to read the evidence and come to the right conclusions."
That strikes me as delusional as anything else in this piece.
He is so smart at reading the evidence he has managed in two years to turn the largest Democratic majority in thirty years into the potentially largest Republican majority in seventy years.
At what point to Democrats get pissed off and start holding Obama, Pelosi and Reid responsible for destroying their party?
I'm sure MSNBC will come up with a perfectly good excuse to convince the Democrats that Obama, Pelosi and Reid had nothing to do with the massive losses tomorrow. Likely, Bush will somehow be to blame.
I live in Washington. Hundreds of loyal Democrats, including the idiot sons and daughters of big donors, are going to lose their congressional staffer jobs tomorrow. And those jobs are not going to come back for a long time. This kind of defeat has real consequences for the people who make their living in this stuff.
Not that I care or have any sympathy for them. But, if I were some Dem staffer whose boss was about to go down tomorrow because Pelosi browbeat him into voting for Obamacare, I would be pissed.
Obama keeps harping on how Bush is responsible for the bad economy,so yes he will say that he was blamed for the damage that Bush caused, but has Obama really improved it with his stimulus spending? Economists are still predicting a serious recession around the corner.
The reason this is nonsense is because you don't get to pick and choose which federal spending dollars are causing the deficit.
They're ALL causing the deficit, equally.
And even if we were going to single out expenditures for blame, it stands to reason we'd pick the marginal spending that was added on between the time the budget had a low deficit and the time the budget had a high deficit.
Maybe, if you live in unicorn land where Congress would not have spent that money elsewhere if they didn't have a war to spend it on. Seriously, Fluffy do you think the Republicans who ran Congress in the 00s were serious about the deficit and only abandoned their commitment to fiscal discipline because of the war? You are kidding me?
You can debate the wisdom of the wars all you want. But to say they caused the asset bubble or that we wouldn't have had big deficits with or without them, is just not true. You are just overreaching. You are so psychologically and intellectually damaged by the 00s and arguments over the wars, you can't think straight about any subject relating to them.
To politically be able to spend a trillion bucks you weren't spending before, you need a crisis.
Why did Congress give the banks 700 billion in 2008, instead of in 2000? Congress is just a machine to hand out money, so why didn't it happen before?
Because different political circumstances make different levels of political abuse possible.
Whatever I may think of the GOP members of Congress from 2001 to 2008, I just don't see them finding a way to spend a trillion bucks in the absence of war.
That is not a trillion dollars in one year. It is a trillion dollars over about ten years. The wars cost us about $120 billion a year. You don't think they could have and would have spent $120 billion a year?
Further, even if they spent less, would it have been so much less that we didn't get the asset bubble? It is not like the deficit is the only thing that caused the asset bubble or even the primary cause. It wasn't. It was a contributing cause. So you are arguing that if the deficit had been even 50% smaller we wouldn't have had the housing bubble and all that came with it? Bullshit. That is a fantasy.
You didn't agree with the wars. I got that. But even if there are good reasons to disagree with the wars, that doesn't mean that they are the cause of every evil. You are really reaching here.
Actually, a big change between the time of low deficits and high deficits has been the Bush tax cuts. But, according to our dogma, tax cuts never cause deficits.
Just like if you quit your job and then have to borrow money to pay the rent, it's not the fact that you quit your job that put you in debt, it's the fact that you insist on having a roof over your head.
We should have spending cut to go along with those tax cuts, but politicians don't have the guts or the will or the ideology to make those spending cuts.
Thank you, Fluffy. All spending contributes to the deficit. Warmongers like to think we can continue our big military expenditures without hurting the economy, but they're wrong. Sooner or later the collapse will come and our wasteful spending on unecessary wars will be a big contributor to that downfall.
That is why we had an economic collapse after World War II. That is why the economy collapsed during the cold war when we were spending almost 10% of our GNP on the military.
You want to get the US out of North America. I got that. But, the destruction of the economy really isn't a good reason.
It's not just the wars where we're spending all that money, it's also having troops stationed all over the world. Altogether we spend a half a trillion every year on the military. It seems absurd to believe all that spending won't have economic repercussions.
The German army isn't what it used to be. I'm not sure the outcome would be the same. It would be an interesting twist having to liberate Germany from the Poles, however.
if I were some Dem staffer whose boss was about to go down tomorrow because Pelosi browbeat him into voting for Obamacare, I would be pissed.
Anybody with enough on the ball to figure that out has probably abandoned ship already, and is busily arranging his pencil box in a shiny new desk overlooking K Street.
The newly unemployed True Believers will roam the streets like zombies, shambling up to the "employees only" entrance of the Capitol, wailing, "Don't you know who I am?"
Those K street jobs are not what they used to be. K Street is for winners. No one cares about people who have influence over the loser party.
And yeah, they are going to be roaming the streets like zombies. I should go down to Eastern Market and spend election night. God, it is going to be sweet.
What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
...If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
Broder can't read history yet he can see the future.
What our government really should be doing is building a fake fleet of UFO's to take out a few European Cities and then our Air Force and Navy kicks its ass. Then the world will love us again.
Wouldn't it be funny if we conducted a war and the economy didn't improve? Well, not really.
Anyway, I don't know where Broder is getting all these phantom divisions that aren't already tied down someplace else. He seems exactly like the kind of old fool who favors reinstating the draft.
""What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.""
But was it about WWII that did the trick? Assuming it's true.
The difference between WWII and any war in my lifetime is how much control the government had over business and people. Guys were sent to war, women worked in the factories. Everything was modified for the war effort, how much gas you could use, how much metal was allowed in products, ect.
The war reduced unemployment, but it was unproductive employment. The economy didn't really bounce back until after the war. If Truman did anything right, it was leaving the economy alone to let it bounce back on its own.
Thanks to government jobs in the military, or military related and killing off thousands of men. That's what people who say war is the answer need to consider before opening their mouth.
If WWII did help the enconomy, it was at a high human cost.
We turned two leading industrial countries into rubble, and the pre-rubble Germans did the same to the other two major economic powers we missed. We were the last one standing.
Also, the wartime economy of privation created pent-up demand that was fulfilled after the war and caused a post-war surge in economic activity.
Broder is delusional in thinking that lobbing a few missiles and divisions at Iran for a few years would have the same sort of effect following the end of a putative war.
The most effective "economic warriors" in history were probably the Romans, who used their conquest to grab unimaginable wealth and create large new classes of taxpayers in the conquered territories. That essentially became the Roman economy for a long time. I would argue a lack of new territories to conquer (or at least ability to conquer them) did more than anything to doom the western Roman Empire. Of course, Rome was willing to do unspeakably evil things with their armies that we would never do today.
""Broder is delusional in thinking that lobbing a few missiles and divisions at Iran for a few years would have the same sort of effect following the end of a putative war.""
I will tell you what it was about WWII that did the trick. We turned all of our consumer production over to military. So, you couldn't buy anything. That created four years of pent up demand for cars and other consumer goods. We also rationed everything so people couldn't spend the money they made. They had to save it. It was forced consumer austerity.
So sure enough, when the war ended and people could spend money again and they had all this money saved, demand boomed and the economy took off. Basically the war forced the economy to make the adjustments it should have made in 1932 but didn't because of the New Deal.
With apologies to the Dos Equis guy, Lee Ving may very well be the "most interesting man in the world."
Any guy who can front one of the few truly great early American punk bands, get a whole genre of music thrown off Saturday Night Live, and play Angela's boyfriend on Who's the Boss is a force to be reckoned with.
Fear is one of my all-time faves, and Let's Have a War probably isn't one of my five favorites from them. I Don't Care About You is a gem of a gem.
It wasn't just the fact that we had a war that got the economy better. Almost the entire European continent was destroyed and had no ability to provide for itself. Thats why going to war with pissant countries does nothing.
In reading the Broder bit again, I'm struck that his more convincing argument for Obama to declare war on Iran is not economic, but that the country will "rally 'round the flag" for Obama, just as it did for Bush following 9/11. Essentially "Wag The Dog" writ large.
Which suggests that Broder needs to switch to a less powerful hallucinogen. Whatever can be said about the USA right now, you can't say that many people, left or right, are in the mood for another war. This isn't 2003.
I said this last week, and I was laughed at. Now who's laughing? Only, I said China, but was willing to settle for Canada.
Naaaahhhh. If you say you want to invade Canada, half of the parliament (the Libs, NDP and the Bloc) would surrender, 'cause big O is sooo cool you know. And I'm not even going to talk about what type of coverage the CBC would do about those redneck nationalists opposing progress.
That would be too short of a war to bring any stimulus.
David Broder advises the leader of the world's most powerful state to start a war to improve his popularity and to marginally improve the economy.
He really shouldn't go around claiming that other people are "threats to the world".
That is pretty fucked up. If there are reasons to go to war with Iran, those don't involve our economy or Obam's popularity. What is really sick about this thing is that Broder admits that he thinks Iran is a threat and going to war with them is justified. But, that is not the reason he thinks we should go to war. That is just fucked up. I guess if bombing a country that is not a threat would help the economy and improve Obama's popularity, he would be all for it. Or conversely, if bombing Iran wouldn't do that, he would be okay with doing nothing and letting them terrorize the middle east.
Anyway you look at it, the whole piece is insane.
Here's a good article by Walt which shows why going to war with Iran would be a big mistake.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/.....er_smoking
There may or may not be good reasons to go to war with Iran. But, Walt is a notorious and disgusting anti-Semite. So whatever the reasons are, I am not going to waste my time listening to his opinions on them.
Sorry, but him and Mersheimer are no longer welcome in serious or polite company. At least not in my book.
Just being opposed to Israeli policy or American policy that puts Israel first doesn't make you an anti-Semite.
No but thinking that our policies are driven evil machinations of the Jews does. And that is what he claimed. I think he is a first class dirtbag. I don't care if he does agree with me on some things.
All Walt and Mearsheimer said in "The Israel Lobby" is that the Israel Lobby is a powerful lobby that does influence our foreign policy and they are right on that.
Don't be silly, bookworm.
Even though AIPAC openly states that their intention is to lobby Congress for Israel's benefit, you're not allowed to say that AIPAC openly lobbies Congress for Israel's benefit.
Oh, are those the rules? I guess I must be anti-Semite.
You are correct, bookworm; however, this sadly doesn't apply in Stephen Walt's case.
Just for shits and giggles, I'd like to point out that Japan considered the attack on Pearl Harbor to be a defensive move against American aggression. Sort of an early application of the Bush Doctrine.
But, did Japan have The Right People in Charge? I thought not. *smug overflow*
Germany also pursued a "preemptive strike" strategy when moving against France and the rest of Europe at the start of World War II.
Germany didn't move against France and Great Britain until after they declared war on Germany.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.
I get it. What you're saying is if we didn't attack Iran, we could have attacked, say Canada. Which would have been equally productive, yet, perhaps easier.
Some Canadians really believe the US embassy in Ottawa is a 2000 foot deep secret bunker filled with black ops, armed to the teeth and ready to take Canada at any moment.
Not needed.
Some VFW branches in the US are large enough to take Canada down. You hand out enough beer at the VFW skeet shooting competition, and it just might happen.
Or jaeger. It might take jaeger instead of beer.
At the age some of the VFW members I've met are, it would have to be beer. You hand them a bottle of Jaegermeister and they'd say, "Jayger mister?" Is this some Nazi shit?"
In reality, the Canadian invasion team really only consists of some mid-level clerk with a Swiss Army knife. Like anyone needs a bunker filled with black ops troops to take over Canada!
You must'nt have seen Canada in a fight... plus we already have you surrounded
http://www.google.ca/imgres?im.....mp;bih=697
Good God. With the looney at an all time high Canooks are taking over the USA, heavily in Florida and Arizona.
Let's blow up every building in America. Just think of how many jobs we could create in building all those new buildings.
Think of all the job openings created by the casualties!
[Guinness Scientists] Brilliant! [/Guinness Scientists]
Yeah, in WW2, we were the glazier to Western Europe's windows. Not so much here.
+1 for the FEAR song lyrics title.
In this case, I would prefer the lyrics
Let's have a war
So you David Broder can go and die
And take Bolton and Kristol over there with him.
In all cases, I would prefer "Have a Beer With FEAR."
Could have also gone with the more obscure: "Let's have a war / said Davy one day!"
Lulz, the Exploited FTW!
New York's allright, if you like me.
Homosexual?
Not here bro. =)
Aren't we already involved in 2 other wars that haven't done much to improve the economy?
You fool! Those wars were in Iraq and Afghanistan! Geez, who ever thought attacking Iraq and Afghanistan would improve the economy?
THIS war is in Iran, which will clearly improve the economy. Don't you get it?
A massive ground war in Asia is an excellent way to improve the economy!
World, meet yet another nitwit who espouses the Broken Windows Fallacy.
Yes, just like the nation rallied around George H. W. Bush ("The Elder") during the 1st Iraq War and got him reelected!
No... wait.
Someone might want to explain to Brooks that every dollar we spend on tanks is a dollar we can't spend on computers and refrigerators and other things that makes life livable. Seriously, how does someone this stupid get a weekly column in a major newspaper? This is so stupid as to be unworthy of response.
Broder. but everyone is missing the point. None of this pissant 150,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're taling a draft. Significant improvement in employment. Plus, no pissant 5 or 6 thousand dead. We're talking big numbers. WE want a BIG WAR! USA USA USA!
broder is a dried up old washington hack who should do everyone a favor and go see kevorkian.
I'm unfamiliar with this guy's previous works, but I imagine his inability to grasp the "guns vs butter" concept is the least of his problems.
The military spending will excite the animal spirits causing the dollar spent on tanks to multiple through the economy!
All we have to do to return manufacturing to the United States is destroy most of the industrialized world. Let's roll.
Ah! But then how would the formerly industrialized world make money or wealth with which to buy our products? With money which our banks or government would loan them? And where would those banks get that money - by simply expanding the supply of money and credit?
Sounds like a plan !
"Let's roll."
Let's roll(tm). There, FTFY.
This election is really, truly driving some people insane. If they were ever sane to begin with.
King of Hearts dude.
Actually, WW@ did NOT "resolve" the economic crisis of the Great Depression, it actually deepened it, as installed capacity was churning out tanks and bullets instead of food, clothes, fuel, silk stockings, cars or appliances. People's standard of living during the war years were actually WORSE than during the whole depression, as there was no rationing during the 1930's.
What ended the Depression was the post-war federal spending cuts and the increased investment by the private sector - the recovery actually was in full swing from 1948!
Ah, the e-mail war.
You took that out of context!
My grandfather managed to skip the draft because it got flagged as spam.
So will any of the new Rs join Ron Paul on the anti-war side?
I'm interested to see what his son does.
They say he has told the establishment GOP guys that he's not as anti-endless-war as his dad is. I think it's 50/50 that's a lie he's using to play them, and once he has the seat he uses it to go berserk. We'll see.
I must confess, this is one of the things I'm very curious to see...how much the lion gets towed with this new Congress.
If Rand turns into a reliable pro-war vote in the Senate, I'd pay $2300 to be a fly on the wall at the Paul family Thanksgiving dinner the next year.
Rand "The Beserker" Paul. I like it. I think they should get Jay and Silent Bob's Russian buddy to come sing it as the intro song when he takes the stage everywhere he goes.
Hopefully more than just his son.
But I thought it was Bush's spending on wars (and not just spending in general, which is Clearly Good) that crashed the economy.
The spending on wars certainly contributed to the crash. War with Iran would be the final nail in the coffin. As Ron Paul said in so many words that there would go our dollar if we go to war with Iran.
"The spending on wars certainly contributed to the crash."
What evidence is there of that? IS it your opinion that the housing bubble was some how driven by spending on wars? Or that the Bush deficits caused Lehman Brothers to go broke or created the derivatives markets?
I don't see one shred of evidence or even how spending on wars helped create the asset bubble that caused the crash.
Easy money policies of the Fed helped to create the housing bubble. Easy money policies were created to pay for big government which included the costly wars. The wars also drove up the price of oil which contributed to job losses. It's all interconnected.
We had easy money a long time before the wars. And the easy money policies continued and were intensified as a result of the tech bubble collapsing. Even if 9-11 had never happened and we hadn't spent one dime on any war, we would have had the same monetary policies, the same asset bubble and the same collapse.
And do you honestly think Congress wouldn't have just spent the money they didn't spend on wars somewhere else? Sorry but your bugbears are not responsible for all the evils in the world.
All I'm saying is that our military spending is greatly contributing to our economic woes. I know people who want America to be the policeman of the world or who lust for wars don't want to accept that.
"All I'm saying is that our military spending is greatly contributing to our economic woes."
And all I am saying is there is absolutely no evidence of that and any honest counter factual look at the 00s reveals that even if we hadn't had the wars we still would be in largely the same position we are today.
And all I am saying is there is absolutely no evidence of that and any honest counter factual look at the 00s reveals that even if we hadn't had the wars we still would be in largely the same position we are today.
John, that's just silly.
On September 12, 2001, two people made separate but interrelated decisions:
Alan Greenspan said, "Oh shit, there might be a deficit" and started positioning the Fed for a series of rate cuts.
George Bush said, "It's clobberin' time!" and started moving pieces around on the board for a pair of wars in the Middle East.
Are you really going to sit there and argue that if these decisions had not been made in exactly the way they were made, we'd still be in exactly the same position we're currently in?
That's, like, the anti-chaos theory. You're positing a historical determinism so total that not only is history not impacted by butterfly wings, it's not impacted by major political and economic events.
Sorry about that, Greenspan should be saying, "Oh shit, there might be a recession!"
Doesn't make a lot of sense the first way I wrote it. I thought it in my head the right way, I don't know how it got typed that way.
Fluffy you are just silly. First Greenspan was committed to easy money long before 9-11. And he was committed to easy money to counteract the Tech bubble collapsing. Do you think that absent 9-11, Greenspan would have been another Volker? If you do, you have gone full retard on this subject.
Second, I didn't know you loved Republicans so much. To beleive you argument you have to believe that the Republicans in Congress and Bush would have not spent the money spent on wars elsewhere and would have instead used it to reduce the deficit. That is just living in a fantasy land. They would have used the money for more pork and more compassionate conservatism. The deficit would have been exactly the same. The money just would have gone to different places.
You are just silly on this topic. We could tell you that the war is the cause of the bedbug outbreak and you would believe it. You really can't think straight about this topic.
Dude, you are under the misapprehension that I start out as anti-war, and come up with spending arguments based on that position.
It's actually the reverse. If you can devise a way that we can bomb the shit out of Afghanistan and have it for free, fuck if I care what you do.
Turn back time and give me the short, inexpensive Iraq war that was sold to us in the press, and I'll sign on the dotted line.
The civil liberties impact of the wars offends me. True. But we would have had that based on the WoT, whether or not we kept ground troops deployed in the Middle East long term.
But to me the really galling thing about the wars is the fact that their immense dollar cost means nothing to conservatives, because to conservatives dick size is involved. And even if there are cheaper ways to get better results, and even if we could have strategically repositioned ourselves to continue military conflict but do it in ways that would have cost less and committed us less, conservatives are genetically incapable of considering that because someone might accuse them of having a small dick.
So what? It is one thing to say they were too expensive. It is quite another thing to say they are what caused the asset bubbles and financial collapse. We are not talking about the former. We are talking about the latter. Quit moving the goal posts. The debate is not about if they were too expensive or worth the cost. The debate is about whether we would have had the asset bubble and attendant financial collapse without them. And on that point, you are just out to lunch.
No way, babe. That WAS the discussion, until YOU tried to change the discussion to make it "Fluffy comes up with his spending positions because he's anti-war". As soon as you barfed that nonsense in MULTIPLE sub-threads, the discussion became whatever the fuck I wanted it to be.
You are being such a Krugman. Despite the fact that we had an asset price bubble following an expansionary monetary policy undertaken in a time of war spending and deficits, there's just not enough proof of cause and effect for you. Just like the Krugster, you have to drag out the positivism and Cartesian doubt every time the fact set is inconvenient. Gosh, dude, I'm so sorry that worldwide economic disaster got in the way of your Trotskyite plan for worldwide transformative war.
"As soon as you barfed that nonsense in MULTIPLE sub-threads, the discussion became whatever the fuck I wanted it to be."
In other words that wasn't the discussion and you changed the subject to it because you like it better.
No, in other words you deliberately moved from the specific to the general, and once you did so I was absolutely free to follow you there.
It was always about the specific. My original post
What evidence is there of that? IS it your opinion that the housing bubble was some how driven by spending on wars? Or that the Bush deficits caused Lehman Brothers to go broke or created the derivatives markets?
I don't see one shred of evidence or even how spending on wars helped create the asset bubble that caused the crash.
I was talking about defense spending as it contributed to this bubble. That is about as specific as you can get. You just jumped in and agreed with bookworm without thinking because you can't help yourself. When it comes to the wars in the middle east, you really do have some form of mild PTSD.
I think it's pretty straightforward that excessively loose money monetary policy combined with massive fiscal deficits can create asset price bubbles.
In fact, that would be one place where Keyesian AND Austrian economic theory agrees and overlaps.
True. And we would have both easy money and deficits with or with out the wars. To believe otherwise you have to believe that without the wars Congress would have somehow found the time or the energy to reign in the Fed or would have not just spent the money saved by not having wars somewhere else.
That seems pretty unlikely to me.
To believe otherwise you have to believe that without the wars Congress would have somehow found the time or the energy to reign in the Fed or would have not just spent the money saved by not having wars somewhere else.
We might have had the easy money, but probably would have had less of it.
And I see no reason to believe that the off-budget monies appropriated for the wars would have been appropriated for other uses, given the fact that we had divided government at the time.
The very fact that our Congress felt enough shame to keep the spending off-budget argues against it.
Now, don't get me wrong. W was a moron, and he might have found a way to be incompetent in different ways instead. I guess we can't know for sure. But after a decade of political consensus around deficit reduction, the idea that W would just wake up one day and say, "Woo-hoo! Let's spend a trillion bucks on shit!" in the absence of a war to justify it seems outlandish to me.
W ran on compasionate conservatism. He gave the world NCLB and Medicare Part D. The Congress was being run by Murchoski and Abramhoff. They would have absolutely spent that money and what they didn't spend, they would have taken in tax cuts. Since when did the deficit not go up when one party owned the entire government?
So, in other words, it's best to spend all that money on killing, maiming, and destruction.
"So, in other words, it's best to spend all that money on killing, maiming, and destruction."
Maybe or maybe not. But that is a different argument. You are dead wrong when you say the wars caused the collapse.
I only say that our big military spending certainly contributes to our economic woes.
If that spending was really necessary, that would be one thing, but if it isn't, then it's a waste.
The war caused a massive disruption in oil supplies and contributed to high oil prices. Spikes in the price of oil consistently lead to economic crashes.
No it didn't. The price of oil didn't spike for any length of time after the invasion of Iraq. The price of oil only went up in 2007. And that was after Iraq was back up producing more oil than it did pre-war. And the collapse was in 2008, five years after the invasion and years after the worst has been seen in Iraq.
You people live in a fucking fantasy world.
A 150% increase in the real price of oil between 2003 and 2006 isn't a spike? That's more than the rise of housing prices in that same time period and the real estate boom was a bubble*. There was the crazy high spike in 2008, but to say that regional disruptions and saber rattling Iran had nothing to do with the craziness of the oil markets is naive.
* It's also more than the rise of the 10 city composite from 2000 to the peak.
See below. World oil production went up during that time. The spike was not due to a supply disruption.
You guys just live in a fantasy world. But every peacenik does. That is just how you roll.
Oil production increased at an annualized rate of 0.67% from 2003-2009* compared to an annual growth rate of 0.91% from 1997-2003. So the growth rate was about 2/3 what it was after the war of what it was before the war. You can play with the numbers all you would like to validate your wasteful war, but it's not going to make Iraq anything more than a waste of American blood, reputation and money.
Also, Iraq is still below its production in 2000.
* Growth was negative in 2004-2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....onthly.svg
Oil didn't spike until May of 2008. And that spike had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. It did go up from 2003 until 2007. But, production went up consistently in the mid 00s.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html
So, the price increase had nothing to do with a "disruption of oil supplies". There never was any disruption.
That's unpossible. Higher prices obviously lead to more spending, and more spending is better.
I mean, right?
Re: John,
John, bookworm didn't say the wars contributed totally to the crash, only that it contributed.
Considering that instead of letting people KEEP THEIR GODDAMMEND HARD-EARNED CASH, the FedGov took it at bayonet point from us and squandered it on imperial wars, then the reasoning that in some part this plundering of our wallets contributed to the crash is not unreasonable.
It certainly didn't HELP anybody to avoid it. Instead of squandering money on imperial wars, people could have kept MORE of their GODDAMEND HARD-EARNED CASH and save enough for a juicier downpayment. Just sayin'.
Again you miss the point. Even if the wars had not happened, we still would have had the same asset bubble.
And if we didn't spend so much money on unecessary military spending, we would have more money available for other things which would improve our economy. Why can't conservatives see this? I guess they're only fiscally responsible until it comes to financing their precious wars that they thrive on.
It's fortunate that I am not a conservative, as I don't subscribe to the notion that wars are "necessary" nor that the productive (i.e. us) have to subsidize the non-productive (i.e. bureaucrats and those on the dole.)
Re: John,
Possibly, but without wars, the economy would have been in better shape than without them. When you have the productive pretty much subsidizing the UNproductive (as soldiers produce NOTHING OF FUCKING VALUE, AT ALL), you cannot say the productive have more wherewithal to weather a crisis than if those soldiers were here making some ACTUAL FUCKING STUFF that people can wear, eat or drive, for a GODDAMNED FUCKING CHANGE.
I hope the emphatic nature of those words drives home the point.
"than with them." Sorry - I read my post HOURS later. Ah, ye gods!
Nothing of value at all? Really? Why is it, then, that in the absence of a government army, private ones invariably spring up?
Does security really have no value? Excess spending on security is wasteful, certainly, but it's pretty goddamn stupid to say that an army has zero value.
So lick my butt and suck on my balls!
Even with the justified (both legal and moral) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US still spends less than %5 of its overall budget on the military.
But facts be damned! Let the name calling begin. I'll start: "Why, that Holy Cow, he's such a troll. He gives me a hanging Chad!"
I see you've been drinking the neocon koolaid, Holy Cow. It all depends on how you calculate costs. I've seen figures which when all military related expenses are included, the percentage of military spending is closer to around 50%
"I've seen figures which when all military related expenses are included, the percentage of military spending is closer to around 50%"
From the evil planet X maybe. That is just nuts.
Even with the justified (both legal and moral) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Fuck you and your bellum iustum bullshit.
Explain the justification for Iraq War, please.
Your facts are wrong. The DoD budget is $667B out of a $3.5T budget. It's 19% of the budget, not less than 5%. It also doesn't include other defense related charges like the VA, NASA (military satellites), DoE (nukes), and DHS & State Dept stuff that's related to defense.
It is 5% of GNP not five percent of the budget. The government doesn't own all of the GNP, at least not yet.
I'm just asking for a little more time here.
Dumb question: are there contemporaneous public statements from FDR himself or establishment brain trusters pushing for entering WWII in order to boost the economy?
I wonder, at the time, would that have been seen as either completely stoopid or at least an unbelievably ugly calculation best not uttered in public?
Is the "total-war-saved-the-economy" idea a revisionist take, or were people as stupid then as they are now?
how would the formerly industrialized world make money or wealth with which to buy our products?
They're all insured by AIG.
If we're going to stimulate the economy by blowing shit up, we should at least start with Detroit.
Been there lately? We did, I think. And it didn't help.
It only works to blow shit up if you let the survivors rebuild. Sending Jennifer Granholm down to shoot the survivors kind of defeats the purpose.
Also from the article:
"In what respects is he (Obama) enduringly superior? Let's start with the basics. He is much smarter than his challengers in either party, better able to read the evidence and come to the right conclusions."
That strikes me as delusional as anything else in this piece.
He is so smart at reading the evidence he has managed in two years to turn the largest Democratic majority in thirty years into the potentially largest Republican majority in seventy years.
At what point to Democrats get pissed off and start holding Obama, Pelosi and Reid responsible for destroying their party?
I'm sure MSNBC will come up with a perfectly good excuse to convince the Democrats that Obama, Pelosi and Reid had nothing to do with the massive losses tomorrow. Likely, Bush will somehow be to blame.
I live in Washington. Hundreds of loyal Democrats, including the idiot sons and daughters of big donors, are going to lose their congressional staffer jobs tomorrow. And those jobs are not going to come back for a long time. This kind of defeat has real consequences for the people who make their living in this stuff.
Not that I care or have any sympathy for them. But, if I were some Dem staffer whose boss was about to go down tomorrow because Pelosi browbeat him into voting for Obamacare, I would be pissed.
Obama keeps harping on how Bush is responsible for the bad economy,so yes he will say that he was blamed for the damage that Bush caused, but has Obama really improved it with his stimulus spending? Economists are still predicting a serious recession around the corner.
It's that narrative thing. Obama's smart. Con law professor, author, awesome orator, he's brilliant !
It's not his fault that the Supreme Court handed over control of our elections to corporations and foreigners.
Please don't be his porn.
No need. That one was pretty much self-satirizing.
He's the one that picked the Solicitor General that failed to win the case.
WWII ended the New Deal and that ended the depression. Frankly the privations of war have greater yields than liberal retard economics.
Sorry, Bookworm, you're wrong. Federal health care and education spending dwarf all spending. Including the total military budget.
But you know that.
The reason this is nonsense is because you don't get to pick and choose which federal spending dollars are causing the deficit.
They're ALL causing the deficit, equally.
And even if we were going to single out expenditures for blame, it stands to reason we'd pick the marginal spending that was added on between the time the budget had a low deficit and the time the budget had a high deficit.
Maybe, if you live in unicorn land where Congress would not have spent that money elsewhere if they didn't have a war to spend it on. Seriously, Fluffy do you think the Republicans who ran Congress in the 00s were serious about the deficit and only abandoned their commitment to fiscal discipline because of the war? You are kidding me?
You can debate the wisdom of the wars all you want. But to say they caused the asset bubble or that we wouldn't have had big deficits with or without them, is just not true. You are just overreaching. You are so psychologically and intellectually damaged by the 00s and arguments over the wars, you can't think straight about any subject relating to them.
To politically be able to spend a trillion bucks you weren't spending before, you need a crisis.
Why did Congress give the banks 700 billion in 2008, instead of in 2000? Congress is just a machine to hand out money, so why didn't it happen before?
Because different political circumstances make different levels of political abuse possible.
Whatever I may think of the GOP members of Congress from 2001 to 2008, I just don't see them finding a way to spend a trillion bucks in the absence of war.
That is not a trillion dollars in one year. It is a trillion dollars over about ten years. The wars cost us about $120 billion a year. You don't think they could have and would have spent $120 billion a year?
Further, even if they spent less, would it have been so much less that we didn't get the asset bubble? It is not like the deficit is the only thing that caused the asset bubble or even the primary cause. It wasn't. It was a contributing cause. So you are arguing that if the deficit had been even 50% smaller we wouldn't have had the housing bubble and all that came with it? Bullshit. That is a fantasy.
You didn't agree with the wars. I got that. But even if there are good reasons to disagree with the wars, that doesn't mean that they are the cause of every evil. You are really reaching here.
Actually, a big change between the time of low deficits and high deficits has been the Bush tax cuts. But, according to our dogma, tax cuts never cause deficits.
Just like if you quit your job and then have to borrow money to pay the rent, it's not the fact that you quit your job that put you in debt, it's the fact that you insist on having a roof over your head.
That's fair. Pull out one piece of the genga, and things turn out differently.
War with no tax cuts might not have exploded the deficit to the same degree.
But that's not the war we actually had.
We should have spending cut to go along with those tax cuts, but politicians don't have the guts or the will or the ideology to make those spending cuts.
Thank you, Fluffy. All spending contributes to the deficit. Warmongers like to think we can continue our big military expenditures without hurting the economy, but they're wrong. Sooner or later the collapse will come and our wasteful spending on unecessary wars will be a big contributor to that downfall.
That is why we had an economic collapse after World War II. That is why the economy collapsed during the cold war when we were spending almost 10% of our GNP on the military.
You want to get the US out of North America. I got that. But, the destruction of the economy really isn't a good reason.
It's not just the wars where we're spending all that money, it's also having troops stationed all over the world. Altogether we spend a half a trillion every year on the military. It seems absurd to believe all that spending won't have economic repercussions.
What would it take to convince Merkel to invent some border dispute with Poland?
The German army isn't what it used to be. I'm not sure the outcome would be the same. It would be an interesting twist having to liberate Germany from the Poles, however.
The German army isn't what it used to be.
Damn that Treaty of Versailles!
if I were some Dem staffer whose boss was about to go down tomorrow because Pelosi browbeat him into voting for Obamacare, I would be pissed.
Anybody with enough on the ball to figure that out has probably abandoned ship already, and is busily arranging his pencil box in a shiny new desk overlooking K Street.
The newly unemployed True Believers will roam the streets like zombies, shambling up to the "employees only" entrance of the Capitol, wailing, "Don't you know who I am?"
Those K street jobs are not what they used to be. K Street is for winners. No one cares about people who have influence over the loser party.
And yeah, they are going to be roaming the streets like zombies. I should go down to Eastern Market and spend election night. God, it is going to be sweet.
I'm envious. Collect some of their tears in a goblet for me if you can.
What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
...If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
Broder can't read history yet he can see the future.
Team America|11.1.10 @ 12:11PM|#
So lick my butt and suck on my balls!
What our government really should be doing is building a fake fleet of UFO's to take out a few European Cities and then our Air Force and Navy kicks its ass. Then the world will love us again.
Wouldn't it be funny if we conducted a war and the economy didn't improve? Well, not really.
Anyway, I don't know where Broder is getting all these phantom divisions that aren't already tied down someplace else. He seems exactly like the kind of old fool who favors reinstating the draft.
""Wouldn't it be funny if we conducted a war and the economy didn't improve? Well, not really.""
We are involved in two wars and it hasn't helped.
But what if we threw a war party and nobody came?
The other famous Fear song would be far more appropriate for Broder:
You, I don't care about you!
Fuck you!
I don't care about you!
But would they call foul if the doctor in the emergency room said that to one of them? 😉
""What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.""
But was it about WWII that did the trick? Assuming it's true.
The difference between WWII and any war in my lifetime is how much control the government had over business and people. Guys were sent to war, women worked in the factories. Everything was modified for the war effort, how much gas you could use, how much metal was allowed in products, ect.
If that's what it takes, I'll pass.
The war reduced unemployment, but it was unproductive employment. The economy didn't really bounce back until after the war. If Truman did anything right, it was leaving the economy alone to let it bounce back on its own.
""The war reduced unemployment,""
Thanks to government jobs in the military, or military related and killing off thousands of men. That's what people who say war is the answer need to consider before opening their mouth.
If WWII did help the enconomy, it was at a high human cost.
"What was it about WWII that did the trick".
We turned two leading industrial countries into rubble, and the pre-rubble Germans did the same to the other two major economic powers we missed. We were the last one standing.
Also, the wartime economy of privation created pent-up demand that was fulfilled after the war and caused a post-war surge in economic activity.
Broder is delusional in thinking that lobbing a few missiles and divisions at Iran for a few years would have the same sort of effect following the end of a putative war.
The most effective "economic warriors" in history were probably the Romans, who used their conquest to grab unimaginable wealth and create large new classes of taxpayers in the conquered territories. That essentially became the Roman economy for a long time. I would argue a lack of new territories to conquer (or at least ability to conquer them) did more than anything to doom the western Roman Empire. Of course, Rome was willing to do unspeakably evil things with their armies that we would never do today.
""Broder is delusional in thinking that lobbing a few missiles and divisions at Iran for a few years would have the same sort of effect following the end of a putative war.""
Yep.
I will tell you what it was about WWII that did the trick. We turned all of our consumer production over to military. So, you couldn't buy anything. That created four years of pent up demand for cars and other consumer goods. We also rationed everything so people couldn't spend the money they made. They had to save it. It was forced consumer austerity.
So sure enough, when the war ended and people could spend money again and they had all this money saved, demand boomed and the economy took off. Basically the war forced the economy to make the adjustments it should have made in 1932 but didn't because of the New Deal.
What, no love for FischerSpooner's "We Need a War"?
You are electric.
With apologies to the Dos Equis guy, Lee Ving may very well be the "most interesting man in the world."
Any guy who can front one of the few truly great early American punk bands, get a whole genre of music thrown off Saturday Night Live, and play Angela's boyfriend on Who's the Boss is a force to be reckoned with.
Fear is one of my all-time faves, and Let's Have a War probably isn't one of my five favorites from them. I Don't Care About You is a gem of a gem.
I remember when tha critics proclaimed Fear as "unlistenable". It's amazing how dated that genre of music sounds today. Good, but dated.
It wasn't just the fact that we had a war that got the economy better. Almost the entire European continent was destroyed and had no ability to provide for itself. Thats why going to war with pissant countries does nothing.
In reading the Broder bit again, I'm struck that his more convincing argument for Obama to declare war on Iran is not economic, but that the country will "rally 'round the flag" for Obama, just as it did for Bush following 9/11. Essentially "Wag The Dog" writ large.
Which suggests that Broder needs to switch to a less powerful hallucinogen. Whatever can be said about the USA right now, you can't say that many people, left or right, are in the mood for another war. This isn't 2003.
thanks