Iran: so how f***ed are we all?

rowdyflat said:
You can see why there are so many poor in the USA when the government wastes so much on pointless wars.
Further you can see how many people should be charged with war crimes if that had any meaning at all.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, wars can be very good for national economies (when you're not the one being bombed, of course).
 
The push by Trump to get EU/NATO to increase it's military spending was in a small part to generate sales of US made munitions. The issue is that Trumps unpredictable nature has highlighted the risks for other nations at being too closely tied to the US. It is risky to have your military systems reliant on a less reliable ally, and EU nations have begun investing in their own defense industries.

The banking system (EPI & Wero) is another example of the EU is developing something that can be used instead of US-based VISA and Mastercard.
 
What I want to know is when/if Trump going to send ground troops? He is fast running out of other options, but body bags coming back before mid terms will be pretty unpopular.
 
PJO said:
What I want to know is when/if Trump going to send ground troops? He is fast running out of other options, but body bags coming back before mid terms would destroy the Republicans' electoral chances.
Click to expand...
Amended slightly. I'd imagine it's not on the table unless Trump is even more insane and stupid than he appears to be. Any ground troop insertion anywhere useful would either be amphibious or airborne based which are incredibly risky options with very few avenues for success.
 
You think logic would dictate not putting troops on the ground given trumps past comments and the mid terms so close. However, if logic was on the table this war wouldn’t have started in the first place, let alone restart just as SPRs are running out. I think Trump will try to take an island just for bragging rights and thinking it’ll be some bargaining chip.
I wanna see Trump f up so much it completely tanks his presidency, just wish it wouldn’t have such a direct impact on all our lives when fuel prices start crashing economies.

And going back the question of the title.
Completely.
 
johnny said:
Unfortunately, wars can be very good for national economies (when you're not the one being bombed, of course).
Click to expand...
I disagree with this popular idea. Spending on military has no return, people are taken away from productive labour and less revenue is available for building infrastructure that increases productivity.
If you make and drop a bomb, that money has gone. If you spent that money on a road that saved thousands of people a few minutes travel time each day you end up with an increase in productivity that can be valued at many times the amount spent.
 
johnny said:
Unfortunately, wars can be very good for national economies (when you're not the one being bombed, of course).
Click to expand...
Maybe you were being ironic ?
Not necessarily good for the economy that is the reductionist argument but its more complicated and I agree with freediver actually.
Probably helps the arms industry only and less for govt services.
No one mentions it but cc is not helped by massively increased co2 toxic gasses from bombed out refineries and depleted uranium weapons although Sandy once said on ski.com.au they were OK which I dont believe.The environmental destruction is massive though USA has a history of "fuck you"like Agent Orange in Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
isdc.org

Wars reduce the world economy by 12% – but some countries gain economically from violent conflict – ISDC

The order of magnitude of the economic burden of war is comparable to that of other ‘global public bads’, such as climate change, land degradation, alcohol cons
isdc.org isdc.org

The study shows huge global disparities in how the costs of conflict are distributed (see Figure 1). Developing countries were hit hardest by violent conflict, while most high-income countries benefited from their external participation; thereby exaggerating global imbalances. Countries that fight wars far away from home benefit economically from their domestic military spending, while causing damage to foreign territories.

WWII is usually the case study that people cite, arguing that it assisted in pulling the US out of the Depression and setting it up for economic boom in the post-war years.

www.nationalww2museum.org

Great Responsibilities and New Global Power

World War II transformed the United States from a midlevel global power to the leader of the “free world.” With this rapid rise in power and influence, the United States had to take on new responsibilities, signaling the beginning of the "American era."
www.nationalww2museum.org www.nationalww2museum.org

The argument isn't that contributing to a war on or between other countries is the best decision for a national economy, the argument is that it can be good for a national economy. Of course strategically investing in productivity with the aim of growth is better, that's self-evident. Secondly, contributing to wars are not always beneficial to the national economy; Vietnam was not a net gain for the US, but that was likely due to the way the economy was managed more than anything else.
 
wesdadude said:
Economists too. It's the parable of the broken window.
Click to expand...
The amount they spend, and they are about to spend, is hard to comprehend...
is it all borrowed with no intent to pay it back?

Australias GDP is a bit under US2 trillion?... so...
1784625158156.png
1784625201022.png

www.theguardian.com

Almost 100 troops injured in recent weeks, Pentagon admits, as Iran launches reprisals on US allies

Iran has attacked a tanker in the strait of Hormuz, forcing its crew to abandon the ship, after the US launched a tenth consecutive night of strikes
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
johnny said:
isdc.org

Wars reduce the world economy by 12% – but some countries gain economically from violent conflict – ISDC

The order of magnitude of the economic burden of war is comparable to that of other ‘global public bads’, such as climate change, land degradation, alcohol cons
isdc.org isdc.org

The study shows huge global disparities in how the costs of conflict are distributed (see Figure 1). Developing countries were hit hardest by violent conflict, while most high-income countries benefited from their external participation; thereby exaggerating global imbalances. Countries that fight wars far away from home benefit economically from their domestic military spending, while causing damage to foreign territories.

WWII is usually the case study that people cite, arguing that it assisted in pulling the US out of the Depression and setting it up for economic boom in the post-war years.

www.nationalww2museum.org

Great Responsibilities and New Global Power

World War II transformed the United States from a midlevel global power to the leader of the “free world.” With this rapid rise in power and influence, the United States had to take on new responsibilities, signaling the beginning of the "American era."
www.nationalww2museum.org www.nationalww2museum.org

The argument isn't that contributing to a war on or between other countries is the best decision for a national economy, the argument is that it can be good for a national economy. Of course strategically investing in productivity with the aim of growth is better, that's self-evident. Secondly, contributing to wars are not always beneficial to the national economy; Vietnam was not a net gain for the US, but that was likely due to the way the economy was managed more than anything else.
Click to expand...
There's a really good historian on YT called Sarah Paine. She lectures at the US Navy War College.

She's got some great lectures talking about the rise of the UK, US and other naval trade powers.

Her thesis is that countries get rich from trading while there is peace. This is a lot easier to do if you don't have a greedy neighbour next door looking to take your land. So the post war rules based order with the US supplying security has been an absolute boon to the US, and everyone who has been willing to trade freely.

Less great for the USSR, North Korea etc who have been naughty little boys and get excluded from trade.

China absolutely benefited from this up until Xi started pissing people off, and now the US is started down the same path with Trump.

Sent from my 24069PC21G using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top