You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What wars is Mitt planning if he wins?
- Thread starter noob_trad3r
- Start date
Quote from Grandluxe:
War is not necessarily a bad thing...
Today economists say WW2 definitively bought USA out of the Great depression, not the New Deal programs.
I look at WWII as Keynesian economics forced on a country in economic doldrums. It is likely that the New Deal programs would have eventually brought the economy around, however government spending was so greatly accelerated by the war that that hastened recovery by putting people to work very quickly. The advantage that this particular war had for the U.S., but not for those dead or maimed at the end, was that the U.S. was the one country left standing, and so, through lack of immediate competition, it was able to pay back its war debt through higher productivity and higher marginal tax rates, and consequently higher government revenues, just as Keynes prescribed. Thus the cycle beginning with the Great Depression and ending with the boom period of the 1950's through early 1960's stands as a near perfect example of Keynesian economics at work, despite its application having been involuntary.
Subsequent wars have left the U.S. weaker not stronger. Current government spending is not enough and in the right places to revive the economy, except slowly. Further U.S.participation in middle East wars would continue, and make even worse, the disastrous effect on the economy that the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are having. Our trade competitors will not be bombed into the dust, as they were in WW II. Domestic productivity and demand will not be accelerated enough to pay back the additional debt acquired because of war, as it was following WWII.
Do not make the mistake of equating the fortuitous economic result of WWII with what would be the economic result of further U.S. involvement in middle east wars. Use the model provided by the the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan instead.
A Romney victory could be even worse for the U.S. economy than the G.W. Bush victory was . We need to stay on the current course but accelerate government spending even more and focus it away from war spending toward job creation and investment in the private sector. There are many ways to do this. Wasting resources on irrational, unproductive wars is not one of them.
(Keynes, of course, would never have suggested stimulating the economy by getting involved in a global war, but the effect of that on the U.S. economy, in the specific case of WWII, was very much a Keynesian like stimulus of the economy.)
Quote from piezoe:
A Romney victory could be even worse for the U.S. economy than the G.W. Bush victory was . We need to stay on the current course but accelerate government spending even more and focus it away from war spending toward job creation and investment in the private sector.
"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."
-James Callaghan- Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and only person to have served in all four of the Great Offices of State: Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer (1964â67), Home Secretary (1967â70), and Foreign Secretary (1974â76)
We need to invade IRAN immediately.
Iran must be reduced to rubble and minced meat, before they can do our best ally, Israel, harm.
But if we nuke Iran, we should not nuke the oil areas.
The new Iranian government, which we will make from any Iranians who survive, can pay our war costs from their oil.
Israel MUST be protected by our American military.
Iran must be reduced to rubble and minced meat, before they can do our best ally, Israel, harm.
But if we nuke Iran, we should not nuke the oil areas.
The new Iranian government, which we will make from any Iranians who survive, can pay our war costs from their oil.
Israel MUST be protected by our American military.
Quote from Grandluxe:
"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."
-James Callaghan- Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and only person to have served in all four of the Great Offices of State: Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer (1964â67), Home Secretary (1967â70), and Foreign Secretary (1974â76)
War is boosting government spending.
Quote from Free Thinker:
no but here are the numbers for ww2. us only spent 350 billion back then:
Total cost was upwards of $1.6 trillion - many financial records for 1939 are missing, incomplete, misleading or contradictory.For example, there is no data available at all for China.
Official estimates based on government data:
USA $350 billion
UK $150 billion
France $100 billion
USSR $200 billion
Germany $300 billion
Italy $50 billion
Japan $100 billion
All other participants - $350 billion
$350,000,000,000.00
SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT A BARGAIN!
So lets adjust for REAL inflation and we'll see;
In 1939 Gasoline was $0.10 a gallon, today's national average is $3.77. A multiplier of 37.7. In 1939 the average home costs $3,800.00, today it is $172,600.00. A multiplier of 45.4 (in a depressed market)
In 1939 Gold was $35.00 an ounce, today it is $1,745.00. A multiplier of 49.8.
I could also point out that in 1939 a complete graduate course (for a Ph.D.) was $345.00 at PENN STATE. Or, a complete meal at the Waldorf Astoria was $2.00 and a penthouse suite was $10.00 a night. Wanna talk health care?
NAW, let's just use the first three examples, (otherwise our current wars will look like they were purchased at a 99 Cent Store).
The average multiplier for the three is 44.3.
Therefore, 350 Billion Dollars x 44.3 = $15,505,000,000,000 (Fifteen & a Half Trillion Dollars).
That is very near our current debt and Much, Much less than we have spent so far on our current wars as well as our "not wars".
So I guess 350 billion wasn't such a great bargain after all.
Except! Back in 1939 we sent our children to war with the intention of WINNING.
Quote from NoBailOutBoy:
$350,000,000,000.00
SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT A BARGAIN!
So lets adjust for REAL inflation and we'll see;
In 1939 Gasoline was $0.10 a gallon, today's national average is $3.77. A multiplier of 37.7. In 1939 the average home costs $3,800.00, today it is $172,600.00. A multiplier of 45.4 (in a depressed market)
In 1939 Gold was $35.00 an ounce, today it is $1,745.00. A multiplier of 49.8.
I could also point out that in 1939 a complete graduate course (for a Ph.D.) was $345.00 at PENN STATE. Or, a complete meal at the Waldorf Astoria was $2.00 and a penthouse suite was $10.00 a night. Wanna talk health care?
NAW, let's just use the first three examples, (otherwise our current wars will look like they were purchased at a 99 Cent Store).
The average multiplier for the three is 44.3.
Therefore, 350 Billion Dollars x 44.3 = $15,505,000,000,000 (Fifteen & a Half Trillion Dollars).
That is very near our current debt and Much, Much less than we have spent so far on our current wars as well as our "not wars".
So I guess 350 billion wasn't such a great bargain after all.
Except! Back in 1939 we sent our children to war with the intention of WINNING.
your numbers are way off.
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
Quote from Free Thinker:
your numbers are way off.
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
Dear Keynesian Kool-aid Drinker:
Follow the lead of your Inflationist leader: DO THE MATH.
I'm talking REAL INFLATION not OBAMANOMICS