Its the stupid, economy?

[Joseph Tracy]

WAR IS GOOD, BUT THE REAL MONEY IS IN PARANOIA
   Most defense spending is paying for a global army to hang around military bases, make babies, watch TV, do training exercises, reinforce a hierarchy with huge payoffs at the top, maintain equipment, bully or intimidate the occupied etc. Most weapons never get used. Most wars end up as miserable destructive failures. But war and spying on possible enemies  seems to be the way societies have addressed their paranoia. And Paranoia Pays.

Do we all feel safe now? Big brother is finally really watching. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. The Economy Is oh so good, the liquor , drugs and guns are flowing oh so free. The dollar is God, the future secure.
 
On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Joseph Tracy wrote:

> This argument is hilarious. Are you really saying the billions that go to defense industries are not serious part of the US economy,  or that the contractors aren't benefitting from wars and that they are not carefully distributed  with military bases all over the country to give every district an incentive to support the defense budget. 
>   Of course war and outrageous military spending  is a net loss for the taxpayers but that is not who has the controlling interest in media and politics and there has been no tax revolt even though citizens of the US get less for their taxes of real benefit than any "advanced" nation.  
> Extreme examples of real live war profiteers include : Halliburton- Cheney   The Carlye Group- Bush, J Baker, John Major One could go on for 10 pages with a bit of research and whole books have been written on variations of the theme but gimme a break.
> NO, WAR IS NOT GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.  BUT WAR HAS BEEN VERY GOOD FOR SOME OF THE BIGGEST WINNERS IN OUR ECONOMY AND POLITICS.  And when the common people in Egypt or Chile or Nicaragua or Venezuela or Iran get the idea that they should benefit from their resources and hard work, it is good to have some generalissimos on the payroll. 
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:49 PM, David Morris wrote:
> 
>> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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>
>> 
>>>>>> 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
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l