Adam Young, writing for the Ludwig von Mises Institute had this to say about the coming war with Iraq:
It seems possible that the coming invasion and occupation of Iraq will happen because the Bush administration believes in the Keynesian/Great Depression myth of perpetual war for perpetual prosperity. As then-Secretary of State James Baker said at the beginning of the first Gulf War, the war was all about "jobs, jobs, jobs."
The president's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, was recently interviewed by the London Telegraph, whom he told, "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." This is a little strange coming from an economist. His claim is based on the benefits from a post-Saddam puppet regime: "When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply," he said. But what if Saddam does in Iraq what he did in Kuwait, and orders the destruction of Iraq's oil wells?
The Adminstration seems willing to try to sell this war any way they can, as if the money used to wage war comes from some magic money tree. The Administration's belief that this war will strengthen the economy is complete nonsense. You can't steal billions from American taxpayers, ruin trade with an entire geographic region for an unspecified time (however long the war lasts) and somehow have that equal a better economy.
—-
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
Great post!
11/12/2002 12:53:00
This sounds like a fair argument to me, and is a big problem for those who would try to argue against a war on strictly selfish grounds. America has done well from prosecuting its imperial wars.
You claim it would be bad for the economy. They say the reverse. Who\’s correct? It\’s now an economics question which most people are happy to leave to the government to decide on.
Additionally many people who are antiwar would essentially agree with the economic argument that big government spending can be good for the economy — although substitute spending on war for spending on something like health or education.
Better to say that war is immoral regardless of whether it is profitable to US multinationals.
11/12/2002 1:22:00 PM
I certainly hope most people aren’t willing to accept whatever economic conclusions the government comes to… states notoriously fly in the face of even economic principles held by the widest possible consensus. I rather doubt you\’d find very many reputable economists willing to suggest that government spending on, literally, production of goods which are only to be destroyed, is anything but a net drain on the economy. That kind of shift in production is tantamount to just taking a sledgehammer to some percentage ordinary output.
11/12/2002 14:20:00
“Better to say that war is immoral regardless of whether it is profitable to US multinationals.”
Depends on whether or not you identify the well-being of the American public with the financial health of certain companies. A war like this is stealing funds from activities that build wealth for everyone (education, health care, transit, research) and turning them to create concentrated private fortunes which will not be circulated widely into general use.
And damaging the financial interests of our trading partners just increases the risks of deep global recession. Who will buy our goods?
This war should be opposed on every front it can be.
11/12/2002 3:02:00 PM
Propaganda alert!
Adam Young writes:
“Bush administration believes in the Keynesian/Great Depression myth of perpetual war for perpetual prosperity.”
The Ludwig von Mises Institute is another one of these paleo-conservative “libertarian/right” think tank windmills with ties to nativist Neo-Confederate groups like the League of the South and the paleo-con Rockford Institute, and others. More on the Mises Institute can be found at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website.
http://www.splcenter.org
Young’s comment above is historically dishonest as well. The “perpetual war for perpetual prosperity” notion was a key element of Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile’s “Doctrine of Fascism” published in 1932. Below is an excerpt.
begin quote: “Above all, Fascism, in so far as it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from the political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor in the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it.” [end quote]
The far right has been trying to define the New Deal FDR administration as \”fascist\” for years and years in order to deflect the charge away from their own far right ideologies.
Given the Rights success over the last few years to paint liberals in the public mind as commies and “un-American” and most recently “anti Semitic” it won’t surprise me if they succeed with this bit of dishonest rhetorical hocus pocus as well. No one understands the “power of myth” quite like the Right.
begin quote: “We have created our myth. The myth is a faith, it is passion. It is not necessary that it shall be a reality. It is a reality by the fact that it is a good, a hope, a faith, that it is courage. Our myth is the Nation, our myth is the greatness of the Nation! And to this myth, to this grandeur, that we wish to translate into a complete reality, we subordinate all the rest.” [end quote]
-Benito Mussolini, Naples Italy, 1912
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism; ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power.”< end quote - Franklin D. Roosevelt ###
\”I rather doubt you\’d find very many reputable economists willing to suggest that government spending on, literally, production of goods which are only to be destroyed, is anything but a net drain on the economy\”
Well perhaps you could explain this. I\’ll give you my rather limited understanding of it all first. Enjoy.
I thought the theory was that it didn\’t really matter what the money was spent on as long as it was spent… like the Apollo program for example. In fact the more useless the better. Because if you spend it on something someone might have bought anyway — like health care or education or infrastructure; something useful — then whoever would have had to buy that product won\’t have to any more (or not so much) so the overall level of spending is reduced.
Therefore war spending (totally useless) and the Apollo program (something no one would ever have spent money on if not the government) are perfect. Money spent here employs people who otherwise wouldn\’t be employed (it would be senseless), and they go out and spend their wages etc etc, which boosts the economy (ok most of it get pocketed by the elites but you know — the trickle down theory).
Ok so the problem with this is that its using magic money that comes from nowhere — but the US already spends $hundreds of billions on the military anyway. There\’s no problem getting a few hundred million more. (Sadly NASA hasn\’t been doing so well). Ok so taxes might have to be raised or inflation or what have you at some point, but the immidiate effect is positive. most of the economy is about confidence and getting the dollars to circulate faster… so force people to spend by doing it through the government.
11/12/2002 8:36:00 PM
NOT GOOD