NP - Germany Won't Budge on Austerity: Economic Suicide is Character Building

[David Morris]

Possible scenarios are endless.  Conspiracies too.

On Thursday, October 16, 2014, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> But what if the window-smashers are in the pay of the glazier? And what if
> they're smashing windows far away from the glazier's neighborhood? Seems
> like the glazier (or defense contractor) would have every incentive to
> continue the mayhem.
>
> LK
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: David Morris
>
> A gang breaking window glass is only financially good for the glazer.
>
> On Thursday, October 16, 2014, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> My point is that war is never good for an economy, in the short or long
> run. Morally, ethically? It may be a last option after all others are
> exhausted, to stop genocide, as in stop Hitler...., but I'm not talking
> about ethical decisions. War is not good for economies. As you say, it will
> increase sales, profits in select industries, give a jolt to a business,
> even jump start a depressed economy, but it is always a negative, a
> destructive enterprise. You don't need a degree in economics to understand
> why this is so. Take Hitler's war and Germany again; total war--occupation,
> suppression, exploitation. What economy improved? How did WWII do any good
> for any economy in the world? It didn't. And every war since has had the
> same impact-negative on economies. Modern economies gain nothing and lose a
> lot when they waste investment on war making.
>
> On Thursday, October 16, 2014, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> I agree - war is not “good” for much of anything or anyone.  It increases
> the death rate but that does not mean it’s “good.”  It may increase the
> money actually circulating but that’s not necessarily a “good” thing,
> either -  right?  Like saying the ebola crisis is good for CNN.  ?   What’s
> the good in that?
>
>
>
> Bekah
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:15 PM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well, murder is good for the funeral industry, but not for an economy.
>
> > Same with war, murder and destruction of labor, assets, resources on a
>
> > grand scale. If an economy needs a shot in the arm, war won't do it.It
>
> > may, as any other shot in the arm may, give the economy a shove, but
>
> > it's a negative all round. Just think about it. War kills workers,
>
> > destroys land and infrastructure, destroys food and farms, cattle and
>
> > agricultural equipment, causes illness and depression etc. nothing
>
> > good comes from war. never.
>
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >> But the government won’t raise taxes the unless it’s for war and other
> forms of gun power.  Gotta go to war - not make schools or roads or
> hospitals.
>
> >>
>
> >> Until WWI folks thought that war was bad for the economy - it
> interfered with growth and trade and that was a no-no. (Think Civil War.)
>  After WWI folks thought there was so much money-making by the defense
> industry they refused to get involved in WWII until we ourselves were
> bombed.   Also,  WWII preparations pushed Germany out of the Great
> Depression and it gave the US a final little shove.  The defense industries
> and the military itself put people to work and the soldiers needed stuff
> like boots and food.
>
> >>
>
> >> So the prevailing thought (myth)  was that war was good for economies
> and the war in Vietnam seemed to reflect that what with the boom times in
> the ‘60s.
>
> >>
>
> >> Too bad, so sad, we’re learning the wrong lessons again -  war is very,
> very good for SOME parts of the economy and which ones has changed. It’s
> almost entirely defense industries getting the bucks these days.  In the
> past it was good for boot-makers and belt-makers and any vender who could
> manage to get a contract with the military. And those newly employed
> workers spent money.  With everything being automated very few industries
> benefit from war.  We’re apparently willing to be taxed for war but not for
> food, health, education, hospitals, roads, science,  etc.
>
> >>
>
> >> Trouble comes in transferring to a peacetime economy - but it worked
> after WWII - because Uncle Sam was paying for an incredible infrastructure
> in schools and a highway system, etc.  Not so today.  Today the government
> doesn’t seem to want to put money into the economy in any other way - food
> stamps are even cut,  health care, nothing except war will be funded by the
> government.
>
> >>
>
> >> just my random thoughts cuz I have a button there -
>
> >>
>
> >> Bekah
>
> >> On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:20 PM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> The arms industry can manage without a war economy. and, more to the
>
> >>> point, so can the rest of the world.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:47 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >>>> It is very good for the arms industry.  But, like I said, that's
> another
>
> >>>> story.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:30 PM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> War profiteering? Jeez, when will people stop with this nonsense. War
>
> >>>>> is never, ever good for anyhing, certainly not an  economy.
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20141016/056a02ab/attachment.html>