Yeah, we belly ache about the cost of the wars America wages abroad. My beef is the haughty disregard for people's lives, quality of life, of Americans, when the US kills and murders others as if they were cattle. Or cockroaches. Really, the Amys go in as if it was the most natural thing in the world to invade a small, little, country, with no defence and no big allies there and then pop them off like skeet.

The above was liberal soft-hearted mushy lovoie-dovie, Canadian pink-azzed softy talk. Forget I said it, it only has to do with humanity, not with the topic, how the cost of the war saves the American economy.

Now, to the real topic. The more the war costs, the more it saves the American economy. I am not joking. Please read on.

The wealth of a nation used to be established by the goods available to its citizens. This wealth increased in the industrial revolution and hence, but inappropriate distribution sometimes pushed nations into depressions and recessions. The goods were made, but were unsalable, coz people had no money to buy them. In recent times, the goods were made, but were unsaleable, coz people had no need to buy them, despite having the money to buy them, coz the ones people had bought earlier, were still good as new. Jobs were lost, since the economy depended on selling the stuff people made, to pay the people who made them, no matter how much they were paid (starvation wages in the teens of 1900, and lucrative bucks in the 1950s onward. In Amerca). Then each time a war came along and got people jobs, which gave them money to buy things.

This gave the idea that manufacturing speed surpassed the speed of consumption of the manufactured materials. So people were encouraged to throw perfectly good stuff away, and buy things anew. To wit: my grandfather owned the White Album by the Beatles, for instance, first on '78 rpm vinyl, then on LP vinyl, then on reel-to-reel tapes, then on 8-track tapes, then on casette tapes, then on CDs, then on MP3 players. Now he listens to the same bloody record in his iPlot, six feet under.

Built-in obsolescence it was called, to keep manufacturing going to keep people in jobs.

Someone realized, a fiction writer in England, by the name of Terry Pratchett, that all an economy needs to be kept healthy is the money to go 'round. If monies rest in one spot for too long, the ecomony goes down, nose first.

So the service economy took over in industrialized countries. But services can't keep up with the demand to keep money moving. You won't be goaded to have a hair cut done twice a week for the rest of your life. You can't get massages 3/7, despite its availability, you won't ride the buses for fun, you won't keep taking money out of your bank and putting it back, ceaselessly. Heck, even the government people, that is, civil servants, and their time, are not used to capacity. It has been documented that a civil servant does not spend his 6-hour work day fully with doing his job, and that is so mostly because there is nothing to do.

Then the sitation was made much worse with the opening of the Chinese job market. Now everything in the world is made in China. Not just Walmart's stuff.

But America likes to keep its self-reliance. To keep the economy going, which the service industry is incapable of all by itself, America fired up its war machine industry again. This is one industry that keeps the jobs at home, the research end of it especially; there is a sizable technical work force employed, so America keeps a critical mass of people in the know of how to accomplish technical things.

But the biggest advantage is this, and please listen carefully, or read carefully, and only then argue when you have something to argue about after that:

The financial cost of the war puts the money spent on the cost mainly into the pockets of Americans. True, America spends 100 million a year or a month, or whatever, on the war in Afghanistan. But it's not at all the same as when a family makes 100 thousand dollars a year, pays 50 thousand in tax, and the husband spends 45,000 on booze, women, and alcohol. And lets his own children starve. No, it is QUITE different. The 100,000,000 dollars that America spends on the war is money it gives to its own people to manufacture the war. If the war was not there, then there would be a lot of people who make now 50,000 dollars a year, who would make no dollars.

In fact, America has a very strong welfare mentality built into its economy, and people would first die than to admit to that. In other countries, like in Canada and in Europe, the money is circulated by giving free medicare to people, by giving food and shelter to the poor, by giving hot soup and warm clothes to the unsheltered in the bitterly cold winters.

America? Give free food to the starving? Perish the thought!! Instead, it gives jobs to people who would have nothing to do otherwise but starve to death, and since everything is made in China (because of the free market system), the jobs that can't be taken from Americans are in the Industrial Military complex.

But the jobs in the military are welfare jobs. You are surprised to hear this, but think.

Sure there are lots of differences: Welfare people are poor, are dirty, uneducated, and foul.

Military men and women are educated, clean, hard-working, consciencious and patriotic.

But the welfare guy in Canada is kept by the state because there is no jobs to give him in manufacturing, in agriculture, in service sector.

In America the guys who are employed to destroy, are doing those jobs coz there is no jobs that they could possibly do in manufacturing, in agriculture, in the service sector.

So the reason, not the type of activity, for the existence of the Military in America, is exactly the same as the reason Canadians get free medicare and nobody has to worry about starving to death or living in shanty-towns like around Las Vegas and inside of Washington, DC. That reason on the conceptual level is a welfare income, a welfare job.

The only differences are that the welfare jobs, in this above sense, give more money to Americans working in them, than the welfare income gives to unemployed Canadians and the same in Europe.

That was one of the two major differences. The other major difference is that Americans use their welfare dollars to shoot innocent people abroad, to spread terror and tears and misery all over the world, while in Canada and in Europe the money is sustained to be in circulation by giving it to people to keep them in relative wealth.

But the belly-aching of how much the war costs to Americans is a false belly-aching. If it cost half as much, it would generate half as much income for Americans employed in the military industry, be it in the manufacturing sector, or the service, or the agricultural ones.

this a parody, right?

I expected and predicted that reaction.

No, it is not a parody. You have to re-read it to get its essence, without first jumping into foredrawn conclusions. Read the text with an open mind- not for liberalism, but an open mind for logic.

That's all that's required to understand the point. Read it with applying your own, personal, God-given, better sense of logic, and do not rely on the critical voice of censorship of the lifetime of indoctrination by American culture.

Sure this must be clear to a lot of thinking Americans what I wrote?

sorry wux, i'm gunna just have to disagree with bud... there are 400 million people in the US right now, and if you add up all the military personnel, the people that work for the military, and the weapons makers, that is still maybe 1% of the population... that still leaves 396 million people unaccounted for...i feel if the wars stopped, the budget might help right itself, but the goons in charge would still be dipping into the extra funds...

There are some glaring fallacies in the OP, but it's on the right track. Read some Bastiat, Hazlitt, and Mises and you'll be able to find the flaws in your reasoning.

i can see that during WW2 that would work, but those types of wars are done with... it won't work with relative small scale of these wars...
evey war since then has been just a personnel and money waster...

Part of the problem is the with the "built in obsolescence" is that a majority of the throw away products we continually buy are made overseas. Advances in technology is all well and good, but are we becoming techno junkies. Honestly do you really need a 60 inch flat screen TV to watch reality shows about celebrities trying to dance there way back into the limelight or talk shows about paternity test in the shallow end of the gene pool?

We are worried about healthcare costs, Social security shortages, pension fund shortages all so we can spend our money on foreign products that we replace every year.

War won't work this time.

We are in a Global (closed cycle) system with no real new markets.

There is no where to go but 'up'...

and up from a sphere is in every direction of the Universe.

but we as a WORLD seem to either not understand...

OR we are afraid to get our feet wet.

[quoe]sorry wux, i'm gunna just have to disagree with bud... there are 400 million people in the US right now, and if you add up all the military personnel, the people that work for the military, and the weapons makers, that is still maybe 1% of the population... that still leaves 396 million people unaccounted for...i feel if the wars stopped, the budget might help right itself, but the goons in charge would still be dipping into the extra funds... Well, that completely ignores the multiplier effect. Each and every one of these people who get paid directly from the Government spend their incone in the stores and businesses that everybody else shop in. those stores spend a portion of their revenues in the businesses that sell them their capital goods. It spreads throughout the economy and feeds GDP. I don't understand why Conservatives, no matter how many times we tell them this, again and a gain and again, can't get this through their heads. They never offer an argument about how this is wrong. They just ignore it.

You got that backwards...

It feeds OFF of GDP...

They get paid by our taxes...

The money that they put back into the system isn't 'real'.

Some do not have to buy cars (our taxes provide them with vehicles) Or homes... same reason.

This eliminates a good portion of the 'feedback'.

Well, that completely ignores the multiplier effect. Each and every one of these people who get paid directly from the Government spend their incone in the stores and businesses that everybody else shop in. those stores spend a portion of their revenues in the businesses that sell them their capital goods. It spreads throughout the economy and feeds GDP. I don't understand why Conservatives, no matter how many times we tell them this, again and a gain and again, can't get this through their heads. They never offer an argument about how this is wrong. They just ignore it.


ok, art your right... what about that 40 million that do not have a job right now? but it is ok, because the 4 million are in the military, making about 1200 a month are spending their money...sometimes you should think before you post, your blind hatred of the republicans is just getting in your way. I won't even mention that about a third of the military is OVERSEAS...

Good point, Moe. In Canada, the welfare recipient gets about one-tenth the income of a good Canadian. In America, the military's 4 million consume as much government funding in wages, as the 40 million unemployed.

But the 40 million unemployed do not generate the multiplier effect. The four million in the military do, whether they are home or abroad. (They wear US military gadgets in 'Ghan.)

The multiplier effect of the military might be more than responsible for the ability of the US economy to sustain the 40 million unemployed. What I mean is that the businesses and other consumers who benefit from the spending of military people and industry, generate way more than enough money in tax revenue, to sustain the lives of the 40 million unemployed.

Economy is like the logic of language. Best to leave alone, if you don't want to go crazy. I can talk about the economy quite eloquently, though, because I'm already crazy. (But not stuuuupid. Those two are not necessarily overlapping qualities in a person.)

I still don't get what your saying, wux...maybe if the actual figures were a lot higher than the 4 million that i quoted i could see it, but i think that it maybe actually lower. Granted they have a job, yes, that helps, but it doesn't seem to help as much as think it does...


In 2008, the U.S. Army had more than 1 million soldiers: 543,000 were active duty, 350,000 were in the U.S. Army National Guard, and 189,000 were in the U.S. Army Reserve.

In 2008, the U.S. Navy had about 460,000 sailors. About 335,000 were active duty and 125,000 were in the U.S. Navy Reserve.

In 2008, the USMC had about 198,000 marines. About 40,000 of them were U.S. Marine Corps reserves.

In 2008, the U.S. Air Force had about 400,000 personnel. About 330,000 were active duty, 74,000 were in the US Air Force Reserves, and 106,000 were in the U.S. Air National Guard.

In 2008, it had about 40,000 active duty personnel.

Read more: What Is the Size of the US Military? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4595933_what-size-us-military.html#ixzz1JAn8mc5I

I can't blame you for not seeing "it", because you only count the soldiers.

The soldiers drive trucks, fly planes and choppers, swim boats.

They also carry guns, shoot bullets, and wear gear.

These things are made. Whoever makes them can only sell it to the government, who will buy only from American manufacturers.

A military that has a million and a half soldiers, fighters, whatever, has employment provided for at least ten million other people who make the weapons, the gear, the communications devices. Aside from that, military is the one sector in which research money is the fattest.

Granted, of the ten million only four million draw their salaries 100% from the goverment. The other six million may take any amount in subsidies for military spending.

So these ten million people go out and buy food, clothing, xboxes, toys for children, tvs, and gas for their car to haul the stuff home... which puts money into the pockets of twenty million people who work in retail... who also buy food, shelter, clothes, what have you.

Cut out the military, and trickle-effect will make another 50 million people unemployed, overnight. The eleven and a half million who work in/for the military, and plus twenty million of those who depend heavily on military money for being able to sell their goods. Tack on another wide estimate of yet fifty million, for those who depend on the money spent by those who depend on the money spent by military and those directly involved in the military industry.

The numbers are ballpark figures, I haven't calculated them to the nearest one-hundred-thousand dollars yet. I'd need access to military satellite photos and see the images taken from space how many people pay how much at the pump and their car's licence plates, the debit card numbers, and the pin numbers they enter.

No, about 40 million of the total 50 million does not get paid by the governent, at all. They don't get subsidies, either. But they live on the spending of those, who make money in the military, which is, in essence, a welfare payment. The military is not something that produces a goods or provides a service, other than for killing people and to keep the country safe -- so to speak. The country is not safe, and killing people is not a production of goods or a service a nation should be proud of.

These fifty million, on the other hand, easily support the 40 million unemployed.

So you see now that almost half of the US population, legal, capable of working, is leaching off the military for their financial well-being, and the military is being sustained by policy, and paid as if they were welfare expense (since they give back nothing of FINANCIAL value to the country, to the nation, to the economy, other than keeping the money in circulation.)

i see what your are saying, but i wouldn't know where to get the figures for it...the only question that to comes mind is how much of that has "made in china" stamped on it? it all cannot be 100% American made, not with obama in charge...

Sorry, Moe, I cleaned up my act, and it took longer than your reply would be caused, and they were written concurrently. So please note that what you quoted I have changed, or improved, after you had quoted it. My mistake, or not, and sorry to have done this to you. It's like playing the game Mastermind and the one giving the answers mixes up the pegs and says later, "sorry, my mistake" and rearranges the pegs to how they ought to have been in the first place.

I don't know how much of military stuff is made in america and what of it in china. Nuclear explosives are made in china, since there is no use for them any more in the US military. But the communications gears... the research... the bullets, the tanks, the planes, the boats... I don't think the boats are made anywhere but in the USA. Can you imagine what goes into making a boat? How much work and money?

Sure, the steel or the iron to be refined into steel may be coming from china... but the labour-intensive process to make iron into steel and boats and choppers is happening in the USA.

yea, thats what i was getting at... most of the parts for the Humvees are made overseas, then assembled in mexco, as is most chevy products are now... the government is trying to establish a one world democracy, which i don't agree with... thats one thing i liked about bush, he didn't agree with it either

Yeah, you're right, but the ships are still built on US soil, and you won't believe it, but you can make 497,343 humvees for the price of one ship.

Mighty Moe

You understand mighty Moe that we spend more money on our military than any other nation in the world. China who we are all so scared off isn't even a close second. This is why we always needed a good war to get out of a bad economic time. Look back at U.S. history we have been doing it since the civil war.

Wux I really hate to say this but you may have something here. we spend about he same as the rest of the world combined of military spending and then half to sell weapons to 3rd world countries to support of spending. then when we fight them they are shooting at us with guns we gave them. Sound familiar Afghanistan. If you do not believe me this is a direct poll from the projected budget of 2011.

We spend ( number in millions of dollars )
2010 2011
26,494/ 28,353 department of energy

131,893/ 134,743 Department of Education ( Is being cut)

666,715/ 739,665 Department of Defense ( Got raised )

It has all the listing of Military programs also. It is clear to see if you know numbers and how to read a spread sheet that if you just cut offensive military spending by half we would make as the kids say BANK!

Source
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012

i understand that we spend more money than any other country on our military... but our military is not the biggest... how can that be?

because of secret government projects that are figured in in militaries budget... did it really cost over 500 billion dollars a year while fighting in Iraq? and every year, the price went up, the exact opposite of what should have happened...the government under bush was secretly funding something else and adding to the militaries budget, and the liar obama is doing the same thing..