i can’t help but get the impression that all of it’s overseas interventions were necessary for the US to be prosperous. What would be the implications for the economy if we reigned in overseas spending? Who benefits from the war in Iraq?
i know these questions might sound silly, but what is the alternative to big spending overseas?
The best solution is to withdraw from the rest of the planet and sharply reduce the size of the military by like $600billion US.
There actually exists an example what happens when the military is mostly dissolved. That is the storehouse of economic myth and propaganda: The Great Depression and WW2. WW2 did not help the economy. It hurt it. What helped the economic recovery was the large number of returning soldiers. They got home and there were no such things as Unemployment Benefits and that kind of crap. The GI bill was a small portion of the younger soldiers. Most soldiers returned home and GOT JOBS. They began servicing people in the economy.
Keep in mind that Truman (Mr. I have a bomb bigger than yours watch me kill 60000 old people, women and children with just 1.) amazingly had the economic sense, or maybe the number was too vast to handle, to just fattened up returning soldiers and sent them home. These returning folks created the most growth in the history of economy of the US.
It’s true that the military-industrial-complex employs a lot of people.
But remember, all of that empire has to be paid for somehow. If it doesn’t come from tax dollars, then it’s from running horrible deficits and borrowing cash, or from printing money. Seen and the unseen, I think.
The same principle applies to any benefits obtained from fighting huge wars abroad for natural resources, if these endeavors are actually driven by such cynical motives. It’s a mindset that assumes that those resources will just pop out of the ground for the once the military takes over. It gets complicated if the operation is not a complete success, or if that country’s infrastructure was leveled during the highlight-reel air bombardment that preceded the ground invasion. It gets even more complicated if that country has no infrastructure to begin with, and is full of pissed-off tribes just itching to dust off the ol’ Eastern Bloc surplus.
The invasion costs money. So do the tanks, planes, bombs, etc. The soldiers have to be paid. If they come back as cripples, they get tax-funded hospitals. There’s also the matter of having such a large pool of potentially productive labor tied up in expanding secondary educational opportunities for women in this counts much more if they implement a draft. Then there are the emotional costs associated with those returning veterans. How can they shift back into productive society with PTSD so bad they end up putting a bullet through their heads a few months after they get back? Well, they can’t.
But on the other hand, if we don’t fight them over there, they’ll follow us home. And you’re a traitor if you think otherwise.
What makes you think that?
Prosperity.
Anyone the government is buying weapons from.
Obviously, the opposite. Spending nothing overseas.
lol. If I had a nickel for every neocon who told me that.
Although I agree with the first part, I disagree with the second. In the book Depression, War and Cold War, Robert Higgs provides a good explanation for the return to prosperity. The relevant chapters are just articles republished, and they can be found elsewhere (JSTOR). In this case, the relevant article is: Higgs, Robert, “Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War”, The Independent Review, Volume 1, Number 4, Spring 1997.
In this article he explains the uncertainty created by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s taxation and regulation of industry, stifling entrepreneurship, investment and economic progress. He suggests that government’s flagrant violation of private property rights impeded recovery. To make a long story short, the mobilization and production necessary to fight the Second World War led to the inevitable deregulation of businesses to allow them to produce war material. This deregulation returned some stability to the market (in terms of outlook), and with Roosevelt’s death it gave the impression that there would be a safer environment for businesses to invest and flourish (without fear of having their private property expropriated by the government). It was this growth which allowed the industry to take in all the returning soldiers (many of which replaced sub par labor which factories had been forced to use).
fair comment JFMC but unless the returning soldiers where charity cases, reintegrating them into the division of labour is not neutral vis-a-vis recovery and other factors, but a positive boon.
I hate to tell you this, but the U.S. economy would collapse. The U.S. economy is dependent on the U.S. dollar, and the dollar depends on keeping the oil pumping. That means U.S. intervention is other countries to keep the oil pumping.
President Eisenhower, in an internal discussion, observed to his staff, and I’m quoting now, “There’s a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East, not by governments, but by the people.” The National Security Council discussed that question and said, “Yes, and the reason is, there’s a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo governments, which prevent democracy and development and that we do it because of our interests in Middle East oil. Furthermore, it’s difficult to counter that perception because it’s correct.”
could you say more about the relationship between US dollars and ‘oil pumping’ ? i dont get the special connection?
The U.S. manipulates (okay, kills) Arabs and others to make them sell oil for U.S. dollars, rather than something with actual value. This keep the value of the dollar high so that the FED monsters can make a fortune.
well, US dollars will currently facilitate the purchase of real goods, so they arent currently worthless. (in other words, hyper-inflation has not hit) doesnt opec do what it wants anyhow? sure, the US went to war in IRAQ, but it got plenty of oil before and after with the UN oil for food program, I dont understand the special emphasis you are putting on oil politics.
yes, only because they are backed by oil.
why don’t you understand this?
'backed by oil?
as in, during the gold standard dollars were backed by gold…? you dont mean this. so what do you mean?
The US dollar is a fiat currency, so it’s partly backed by violence. US subjects don’t really choose the dollar, they are forced to use it. The idea that other people outside the US are ‘induced’ to use dollars is not far-fetched. I’m not sure how that can work with respect to arab governments but it’s not impossible IMO.
that’s exactly what I’m getting at.
yes, buts its as meaningful as saying that the US dollar is back by japanese cars, jaffa oranges, champagne from france etc.
oil isnt a special magical product. and it does not back the dollar.
Most economies could survive without japanese cars, jaffa oranges, or champagne. Oil is what makes the world go round.
thank you for your ‘oil is magic’ wisdom.