Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
92. ''Money trumps peace.'' -- pretzeldent George W Bush, Feb. 14, 2007
Thu Jun 11, 2015, 09:52 AM
Jun 2015

Uttered at a press conference in which not a single of the callow, cowed press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up. And then he laughs.



Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention. Few others, if anyone, saw fit to comment.

Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has seen the future and it looks bleak for most of us. Thankfully, the United States of America may be in for good times, especially for those perched atop the socio-economic pyramid scheme, should war break out.



The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0



[font color="purple"]Dr. Cowen, from what I've read, is a fine person and not one to promulgate war. He's just sayin'.

He has commented on other Big Ticket economic themes impacting us today: "Inequality," for another instance.
[/font color]



Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse

by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM

Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:

"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."

It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.

SNIP...

Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded — every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.

CONTINUED with link to the audio...

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse



For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, we can't afford that now, obviously, thanks to austerity or the sequester or the divided government, but certainly not the trillions spent on wars for profit.



As for where American's entrepreneurial spirit of war came from: Poppy: Bush Sr told the FBI he was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.



I don't get it either. CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2015 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jun 2015 #2
He found his "comfortable walking shoes..er...boots". Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2015 #3
Obama is hopelessly conventional. He can't think outside of the box. Vattel Jun 2015 #4
I'd settle for him thinking inside the box nichomachus Jun 2015 #7
You know, that is the most apt description of Obama that I have ever read. Nay Jun 2015 #38
I gave up on Obama being any different cwydro Jun 2015 #5
I never really chose him as the candidate to support rock Jun 2015 #47
I did not know he was a ballet dancer. cui bono Jun 2015 #60
LOL. rock Jun 2015 #75
People here said upon entry into Iraq that it would destabilize the region for decades. NCTraveler Jun 2015 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jun 2015 #9
I don't think he is misunderstood. NCTraveler Jun 2015 #10
Read Bertram Gross, Friendly Fascism davekriss Jun 2015 #76
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jun 2015 #82
Yea, what ever. mindem Jun 2015 #84
You, my friend, are obviously too young tiredtoo Jun 2015 #91
Money. It trumps peace. Octafish Jun 2015 #8
^^^THAT^^^ onecaliberal Jun 2015 #58
''Money trumps peace.'' -- pretzeldent George W Bush, Feb. 14, 2007 Octafish Jun 2015 #92
Oy! Sucks to be us. We're about to elect another corporatist. onecaliberal Jun 2015 #93
he found being president is is complicated Backwoodsrider Jun 2015 #11
Reports about Clinton point to a far more aggressive military policy. jeff47 Jun 2015 #14
It's not really about Obama, or even Bush for that matter Cal Carpenter Jun 2015 #12
He was handed an unwinnable situation by the morons who started it. jeff47 Jun 2015 #13
From what I've read, ISIS is a coalition of the Baathists and Islamic radicals. They are not grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #15
The hope was a new Sunni group would dry up their support jeff47 Jun 2015 #16
I've read that ISIS is a combination of Extemists and Baathists. What I see, if we leave, is that grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #25
So if you understand all of this, why are you blaming and condemning Obama? Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2015 #32
Because Obama promised to end the war in Iraq Unknown Beatle Jun 2015 #43
Iraq is a quagmire of flypaper. kairos12 Jun 2015 #31
Read Micheal Glennon's "NAtional Security and Double Government" hifiguy Jun 2015 #17
I think he got a little talking to right before he was sworn in. rurallib Jun 2015 #21
Democratic presidents always get "The Talk" after they win an election hifiguy Jun 2015 #24
Or even before he was elected. zeemike Jun 2015 #46
I remember the very night he was sworn in he did a drone strike...always grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #95
There's no way we were going to watch all of Iraq fall to ISIS without at least trying to TwilightGardener Jun 2015 #18
Yep. I agree. Nt stevenleser Jun 2015 #19
got to think if they had no oil we'd be out of there in a heartbeat. rurallib Jun 2015 #22
I honestly don't think that's it (this time). We actually have plenty of oil now, anyway. TwilightGardener Jun 2015 #23
Who is we...that is the question. zeemike Jun 2015 #48
It's not even 'we' now. It's 'they', the transnational corporations. cui bono Jun 2015 #61
Or an it. zeemike Jun 2015 #70
It's not really falling to ISIS, this group is the old Iraq military mixed with Sunni extremists, so grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #27
the country is made up of more than Saddam's military and Sunni extremists JI7 Jun 2015 #30
The US does not need to fight this war LiberalLovinLug Jun 2015 #42
He isn't continuing it. Obama has started a new Iraw war debacle. morningfog Jun 2015 #20
It's the same in that we are still fighting the Baathists, who have been rebranded by the media as grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #26
You are completely wrong. Bush signed the piece of giftedgirl77 Jun 2015 #29
I am not wrong. All troops were removed as of Nov. 2011. morningfog Jun 2015 #37
Yes & that is because of the piece of shit SOFA that giftedgirl77 Jun 2015 #62
We should never have gone in the first place. bvar22 Jun 2015 #102
As I said in my first reply, we never should have gone. giftedgirl77 Jun 2015 #103
Oh, I follow your pedestrian thinking easily. bvar22 Jun 2015 #104
Obama tried to keep US forces in Iraq after the SOFA. OnyxCollie Jun 2015 #40
I'm curious MFrohike Jun 2015 #65
It would've never happened, not with their current court system. giftedgirl77 Jun 2015 #87
Right MFrohike Jun 2015 #112
which was used to give Bush credit for ending the war treestar Jun 2015 #89
We always knew we would be back in there... giftedgirl77 Jun 2015 #90
Does that mean you don't think ISIS should be stopped? BainsBane Jun 2015 #66
Obama's had us back in Iraq, with operations in Syria for a year, yet here we are escalating. morningfog Jun 2015 #80
True BainsBane Jun 2015 #81
Knock yourself out and don't forget to pay for it. TheKentuckian Jun 2015 #85
He's taking a lot of flack for "not having a strategy" Scootaloo Jun 2015 #79
He should have finished it by the end of his first term. AtomicKitten Jun 2015 #28
+ a brazilian. nt hifiguy Jun 2015 #33
word.. G_j Jun 2015 #34
He finished it soon upon taking office BainsBane Jun 2015 #67
Baloney. Leaving thousands of troops behind is not "ending it." AtomicKitten Jun 2015 #69
Let's hear your facts BainsBane Jun 2015 #72
Here are some facts for you BainsBane Jun 2015 #73
It was necessary for candidate Obama to distance himself from the hawkist Clinton. rhett o rick Jun 2015 #35
This isn't his first lie. Phlem Jun 2015 #36
"He lied." BeanMusical Jun 2015 #39
Are you talkin' about.... Plucketeer Jun 2015 #41
I don't think Obama, or any President for that matter has a choice. jalan48 Jun 2015 #44
He's the commander in chief, he can order the troops to come home. grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #45
Same reason we have Heritage Care, fracking, offshore drilling, charter schools, attacks on teachers Doctor_J Jun 2015 #49
Because he is free from having to run again and can let his let shine. nt raouldukelives Jun 2015 #50
The MIC has no morals and EVERY war is a win for them . orpupilofnature57 Jun 2015 #51
He CAN'T end the war. No one can. Smarmie Doofus Jun 2015 #52
how large is the whole world's military industrial complex ? olddots Jun 2015 #53
Yes...he's omnipotent, and he should do what a true god would do! Hulk Jun 2015 #54
Great reasons for peoples sons and daughters to die. grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #59
When I see posts like this one it makes glad again underthematrix Jun 2015 #78
Jingoistic nonsense. Maedhros Jun 2015 #86
Because he is owned by the military industrial complex Joe Turner Jun 2015 #55
Hope And Change - A Marvelous Thing - Sometimes cantbeserious Jun 2015 #56
Yes, he swindled us all. N/t PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #57
Its OPs like this that make the left appear rather stupid on narional security issues. JoePhilly Jun 2015 #63
Not the left BainsBane Jun 2015 #68
That's fair ... JoePhilly Jun 2015 #105
That isn't the worst of it BainsBane Jun 2015 #106
And they think as a candidate, he said he'd pull troops out of Afganistan, when ... JoePhilly Jun 2015 #109
"But here on DU ... any use of the military is equal to a full scale invasion." BainsBane Jun 2015 #111
I don't think this is the left, the OP's title is chunk full of sophistry uponit7771 Jun 2015 #107
He did end it. Essentially decided Iraq was done BainsBane Jun 2015 #64
Psst! Don't tell anyone! It'll stifle the outrage, DU's primary fuel source. n/t freshwest Jun 2015 #74
Facts suck!!! /sarcasm <--- cause this is needed around here uponit7771 Jun 2015 #108
Clearly, you don't understand 12th dimensional chess. Fla_Democrat Jun 2015 #71
And the number of "trainers" is misleading. guillaumeb Jun 2015 #77
In Vietnam, after we were withdrew, the country stabilized and now is grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #97
True, And all the stories about "dominoes" guillaumeb Jun 2015 #98
I can only imagine a similar fate awaits Iraq one we withdraw. grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #99
Partisanship. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2015 #83
I thought we were responsible for the mess there? treestar Jun 2015 #88
I can't believe the amount of self-loathing I see in this thread. randome Jun 2015 #94
I loathe wars for profit. If the goal is to "degrade and destroy ISIL", as the president has said; grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #96
I, for one, don't give a shit about 'winning'. randome Jun 2015 #100
Should we be at war with Saudi Arabia to prevent grahamhgreen Jun 2015 #110
The cart was run into the ditch by Bush, and Bush was unable to secure the agreement needed Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #101
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why is obama continuing B...»Reply #92