I am Confused on an Issue...?

No links. No current events. Just a question or two about PAST events countries like the U.S does involving war really.

The U.S have had its fair share of wars, small or big. Most people on ATS can see that this is usually for either

a) Big Business
b) To start a democracy (Possibly make an ally?)
c) Strings being pulled by a higher up group

Now...my main question is the only reason the U.S economy is so strong (or was) was due to these wars? Could the U.S economy been stable, but on lets say a *much lower level* if these wars not have happened?

Even with the big business idea in mind, whether this was the main reason or not, there HAS been some decent change in the middle east where we are fighting. Some public programs (schools, medics, etc), and the elimination of some top terrorist.

The reason I asked my first question is because I am, to put it blatantly, clueless as to whether if these types of wars are what could have been keeping the economy up, or doing the complete opposite by killing it?

Good question. That im not aware of.

The only thing i can be sure of is war boosts economy's. Its a sad fact but unfortunately true. I hope some of the more enlightened members of ATS can answer the Q.

Peace!

I think that no wars would have saved us some trillions on the National Debt front, but we would have still had this economic crisis. We as a country and as individuals have just been living on credit way too long. In addition, we have allowed our businesses to over inflate the markets to numbers that were no where near their true market values.

What about the stock market? I am also oblivious to the finer ways how that works...

To my general understanding - is it not true that when stocks raise and the dow etc all go up that is a good thing?

Well - another question is how long can things like that go up? If we as a nation continually build ourselves to the current economy, so at times when its at its high we live right along with it...but when it goes down at all it seems as if the "American Way of Life" also has to go down.

Unless famine, disease, or widespread war strikes, population continues to increase. When the economy goes up, as do the amount of jobs out there (Usually - correct me if I am wrong). Well, economy goes down, the population stays the same but the number of jobs goes down...then those people can not feed, shelter, or take care of their medical bills, resulting in the possible deaths of those people.

Now - do not get me wrong. A perfect economy would always keep its people stable...but I don't see that being realistic. Also referring to the other thread with the family that has 18 kids (?), I also doubt that every single one of those kids will contribute to the economy, or even if not in that case, many other families in that situation (Maybe not 18 kids but lets say 3 or more) that all children end up on welfare.

As I said...in a perfect economy none of this would be an issue. Who knows what system could lead to such a thing, but I don't see the U.S with one at the moment and that is what my question is about. Would a population control possibly HELP the economy in terms of surviving the long hull?

I understand the arguments against it could be tremendous, so remember this is just ATS and not actually happening, but that does not mean it is right either.

A great point. And perhaps bigger in scope than you might have antisipated!

Our economy is great at getting the boost in the arm that happens with war, however, now, thugh more of the items are made here, the production of the parts are made elsewhere.

Our problem or economy has is not with or without war... It's that we don't use enogh of our own economy.

In my opinion we should put our factories back on US soil and pose a higher tax on imports (making the domestic cheaper).

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Jkd Up]

I truly hate asking others to research but if you know this off the top of your head go for it.

My understanding is that we buy all of these products made in China because they are dirt cheap? Now - there are children and such overseas working for almost nothing, where if the same jobs were put in here the difference in the wages of workers would be tremendous www.asianresearch.org... - not sure how accurate this is but you get the idea...

Are these CEO's making THAT MUCH more or would some business not even be able to operate in the US?

The money we "save" (if any) from buying these foreign products...wouldn't that mean we can just put the "rest of it" into something that is domestic? The way I see it is the only way the S hit the fan is if these products we import get jacked up prices.
How can

Once in college I should take some classes on economics...but until then enlighten me!

I wonder if I am getting head in over heels with this - this stuff must be linked together in so many ways I can count.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
No links. No current events. Just a question or two about PAST events countries like the U.S does involving war really.

The U.S have had its fair share of wars, small or big. Most people on ATS can see that this is usually for either

a) Big Business
b) To start a democracy (Possibly make an ally?)
c) Strings being pulled by a higher up group

Just a) in fact. Wars to start a 'democracy' are usually funded by big business, the higher groups that pull the strings, are generally big business. With perhaps, the exception of the current situation in Israel/Palestine, there are no truly, authentic, territorial wars anymore, and even in that circumstance, the situation is only 'tolerated' by big business because it is to their advantage in some way for them not to get involved. However, in my estimation, it seems likely that 'subversives' working for some global concern will have had some hand in exacerbating the situation.

In terms of economic booms created by war, the clearest and best documented example, for me, is the way in which Germany was utilised after the first war. Although the US was in the midst of a depression and desperately in need of inward investment, major corporations and individuals chose to invest in the German economy, simply because under Hitler, they were promised rapid industrial expansion which would lead to an incredible return on their investment. By supporting Hitler and investing in his expansion East, knowing that companies in Poland etc would be up for grabs for peanuts added additional incentive.

For the bankers who in the most part handled these investments there was the added profit to be made, should the US join the war, in lending the government money to fund mobilisation. Effectively therefore, the money made by investing in Germany's war effort was then funnelled back into the US to fund the war against Germany. The increase in industrialisation required to arm and mobilise a force on the scale deployed by the US also boosted the economy by creating jobs and employing women to replace enlisted men (thereby increasing the number of tax payers, enabling great leverage for state loans). With both sexes earning a wage, and a lack of scarcity in the US that precluded any need for rationing, the economy was boosted by the increase in disposable income which led to an increase in luxuries being manufactured and sold. Following the end of the war, there was an increase in civil works which kept the momentum of investment and employment going. Much of those works were 'tendered' out to either Bechtel or McCone. Both of whom would become major players in subsequent conflict. ITT, a major investor in Nazi Germany, also switched primarily to security work and featured in subsequent military operations by the US.

The primary reason why the US became so involved in spreading 'democracy' was to regain control of private interests in those countries that they consider un-democratic, for example most recently Venuzuela, and Bolivia, both countries nationalised companies that were owned by overseas, particularly US investors. The Bay of Pigs for instance was orchestrated in part, by board members of United Fruit, which had been nationalised by Castro. It all comes down to money if you look close enough.

Thanks for the enlightenment. It sort of makes me sick just to think that war is never really about disagreement...just money (most of the time).

I can sort of get a perspective on how all of this foreign investing into the US is a bad thing. Yeah - I always knew it was but this just makes my light a bit brighter.

A question to ponder is this...
Without war, would our economy be driven back far? I hear that we waste so much money on the war, and then I hear that it is an economy booster.

I guess it is right time right place (Do not take that the wrong way) for how a war could boost an economy...