How do I counter the "war is good for the economy" crowd.

[The Backlash Cometh]

I'm going to be stuck a whole day with the right-wing side of the family and I'm girding my loins for battle. I could use some help fighting back the "war is good for the economy" argument I always get.

There are two camps of right-wingers I have to deal with. The older crowd is convinced that we have to start a full fledged war with the muslims. They don't differentiate between borders. They just know the enemy is black, illiterate, French speaking and the muslims want to conquer the world, so we need to stop them before they start.

The other camp is more practical. Some of them are Lockheed employees and believe on a practical basis, war is good for the economy. They also tend to be racist and believe that they're losing their jobs because of Affirmative Action, but that's not important to this post. Just fleshing out the characters for you.

So, what is the counter-argument?

[deadparrot]

1. Well, we're at war right now, and the economy sucks.

So their logic doesn't hold.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. I'm sure they're going to say that we haven't fully committed.

Throw in a draft and suddenly production orders will increase.

[havocmom]

14. Fully committed or bigger war won't help when corporations outsourced

most production. Needing MORE of anything will help economies of other countries, but not ours

[ClassWarrior]

2. The state of the economy's the counter-argument.

NGU.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Maybe they'll say we need a bigger war?

[DistressedAmerican]

5. War Is Good For The Economy If It Is Paid For.

We are borrowing money at a record rate for this one. It is a massive drag on the economy. Deficit spending has never been argued to be good for an economy!

[loveable liberal]

6. Peace is good for people?

have them visit a few graphic websites for pictures of the dead children and mutilated bodies. They cant connect with a war until they really view the consequences.

Also, ask them not to be paper christians.

[Zynx]

7. It only was back in WWII and the Civil War because gov. spending

was so high. Increase government spending that much on domestic infrastructure improvements, you'll see the same thing if not more growth.

Also, when an economy moves from a war time economy to a peace time economy, the move results in shortages and rampant inflation as seen in the late forties after WWII.

[havocmom]

8. carry enlistment papers with you

and tell them to do their part for the economy and SIGN UP. Oh, and you'll save them a stamp, and carry the papers to a recruiter yourself.

Tell them to put their hiney where their mouth is.

If they refuse to sign up, or have their kids sign up, tell them they are greedy bastard vultures who think it's ok to profit from other's misery and dismiss them. Why bother YOUR beautiful mind worrying about them?

[hobo_baggins]

9. for starters amassing large amounts of debt is never good for the economy

And a robust economy is never worth having large amounts of casualties.

[newyawker99]

59. Hi hobo_baggins!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[I Have A Dream]

10. I'm not agreeing with their argument that war is good for...

the economy, but even if it were, how can they justify someone dying for it to occur? Would they want one of their loved ones to die to get this supposed benefit to our economy? If they use the argument that servicemen & servicewomen volunteered to join, my argument is that these people who joined believed that the government would only send them on missions that were required to protect our country. They trusted that our government would act in good faith.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. They don't actually fight in the wars, but they have made a great

living feeding them.

[I Have A Dream]

27. In my opinion, I don't know how anyone can ever support a war without...

being willing to lose someone that they love in that war. This is the criterion that I use when deciding whether a war is a just war to me personally.

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. self-delete

[GAspnes]

11. "So is burning down a city a month, but it's not really practical"

Ask how they feel about restoring New Orleans -- that will be a huge boon to the economy. They'll probably shift ground to "war is necessary for other reasons" and then you can have some fun chasing them.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. I'd like to hear those reasons!

[leeroysphitz]

12. IMO Two words: National Debt. 'nuff said... nt

[firefox]

13. "Well is there any thing else stupid you want to say"

War is good for the national debt and what would the price of gas be if we had not invaded Iraq?

[Marr]

15. If they're Lockheed employees, give up. War *is* good for *their*

section of the economy.

If I were you I'd just tell them there's a word for people who put their own bank accounts ahead of their country's interests.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. The word for those kinds of people is "Republican."

[sam sarrha]

16. "How much money do you get every time a mothers son soldier dies..??"

[maine_raptor]

17. Two points to use

On the "so we need to stop them before they start" crowd;

Remind them there are 300 million of US and 1.2 Billion of them, Custer had better odds.

For the "war is good for the economy":

Remind them that every "civilian dollar" spent by the US Gov circulates seven (7) times more in the economy than a "military dollar" spent.

[NewJeffCT]

19. 300 million of us

but, we're not all on the same page...

[maine_raptor]

32. Oops

Edited, thanks

Not on same page maybe, but we all are in the same "book" (or "boat" depending on how you look at it).

[NewJeffCT]

49. well

we have over 12% of our nation are African American, 12% Hispanic, a few million followers of Islam here, a few million Chinese & Indians, a few million Jews, etc. not to mention the divisions by race & class that exist here.

[NewJeffCT]

18. a lot of folks think they are losing jobs because of affirmative action

amazing that the African American community still makes quite a bit less than the white community despite this, eh?

World War 2 did get the US out of the Great Depression...

But, what has the War of Terror done for the economy? It's been great if you've invested in a big mega corporation and it's been good if you've been the CEO of one of those big mega corps. But, other than that, we've seen:
1) more long term unemployment, (if you have been unemployed for over 12 months, you are no longer counted as being unemployed)
2) wages that have declined for the first time in decades... and, when wages have gone up, they have not kept up with inflation.
3) weakening of environmental standards to benefits the mega corps
4) the loss of international status for the US. We are not "The Place to be" anymore, as evidenced by sharp drops in college applications from places like India & China. In the past few decades, our ranks of engineers, scientists and PhDs in general has been greatly supplemented by Asians coming here from overseas and many of them staying here to contribute to our country. Now, these Asians are going to Europe or staying home for PhDs. This does not bode well for the US long-term.

[Tace]

20. When Faced By War Mongers -- I Just Say It's Wrong To Kill People

There's no way you can change the minds of those people. They'll change their minds when it suits their purposes.

On Edit: Also, war is not good for the economy. That's completely ignorant, perverted bullshit. Just pick up an Economics 101 text and look at "Guns or Butter." War is the opposite of good for the economy. It's like saying that injecting cocaine is good for you because it makes you feel really good for a little while. But, in the end you kill yourself long before your time.

100 years ago doctors thought cocaine was good for you.

[MADem]

22. Ask them how much it costs to fill their gas tanks

...and if they are ready for winter heating season.

All that money they are pumping into their gas hogs ain't going to put presents under the tree for little Billy and Susie...

But your best bet is to simply respond with "Hey, have another beer, idiot."

[shraby]

24. Ask them, why should our economy depend on

killing people to make it run good.

[deadparrot]

25. What about Vietnam?

Iraq is much closer to Vietnam than WWI or WWII.

"The Vietnam War had several effects on the U.S. economy. The requirements of the war effort strained the nation's production capacities, leading to imbalances in the industrial sector. Factories that would have been producing consumer goods were being used to make items from the military, causing controversy over the government's handling of economic policy. In addition, the government's military spending caused several problems for the American economy. The funds were going overseas, which contributed to an imbalance in the balance of payments and a weak dollar, since no corresponding funds were returning to the country. In addition, military expenditures, combined with domestic social spending, created budget deficits which fueled inflation. Anti-war sentiments and dissatisfaction with government further eroded consumer confidence. Interest rates rose, restricting the amount of capital available for businesses and consumers. Despite the success of many Kennedy and Johnson economic policies, the Vietnam War was a important factor in bringing down the American economy from the growth and affluence of the early 1960s to the economic crises of the 1970s."

http://www.historycentral.com/sixty/Economics/Vietnam.html

[Loge23]

26. China

We're up to our eggrolls with debt to fund this illegal war - most owed to China. That's real money folks, and your children's children will pay. Not to mention creating a serious rival to our status as a super-power.
To bolster the argument, I'd search employment stats to get a grip on all of these defense-related jobs that are supposeably being created.
Last August, the NYT Op-ed section published an excellent chart on war expenses. At that time it was "only" $144.4 billion. The article listed all of the other things that could have been - and never were -purchased for domestic security.
To the first camp, I argue: What's the end game? Should we attempt genocide? Exterminate all Muslims? Is that their will?
To the second, put the onus on them. Prove it. Put up or shut up and leav out all of the racist crap. Challenge a fool and they will promptly prove their foolishness.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. The older Republicans do believe we have to exterminate

Muslims.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

29. Are they willing to send their own children and grandchildren to fight?

If not, they just made a value judgment that war is not worth it if THEIR children and grandchildren have to do the dying and suffer with horrific injuries. If they say that the issue of whether their family members will fight the war is irrelevant because the US has an "all-volunteer" army, ask them how many people they think will enlist to fight a war to line the pockets of big corporations like Lockheed. Indeed, recruitment is already down and the entry requirements have been reduced. Hey, Lockheed ought to make enlistment for at least the minimum service period a requisite for employment.)

Of course, we all know that reasoning does not work for this kind of person. When you try to have a discussion based on logic and reasoning, they fall back on sloganeering and name-calling - you no doubt will be called anti-American, and worse.

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. You're right that reasoning does not work for this kind of person,

but I have experienced exceptions. I have managed to shut them up by showing that I'm more up to date on current events than they are. Funny how their argument almost gets reasonable once they realize that the soundbites aren't working.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. Don't.

Tell them to fuck off and flip the table over.

Then say "just kidding."

Then stomp out of the room and ,just before slamming the door in their faces, scream "Alan Colmes or death!" with your head tilted jauntily.




Or just say "pass the butter." :shrug:

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. I try to role play when I'm alone in the house and try to imagine

myself in control of my emotions while I'm making a retort. It's not working. I told my husband I need to walk around with one of those Blue Tooth earpieces in my ear so people think I'm having a conversation with someone via cell phone.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Start wearing a helmet whenever you have to mix with them.

They'll think twice, I suppose.

[VPStoltz]

31. Why bother? Those types would never admit that the Iraq war, as well as...

the several past have had no real security issues involved - they were corporate wars. Since they can't see reality, there' no bringing them to it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

I've been able to whittle down my exposure to them to 3 hours

a year, but this year is a big family reunion which will take an entire weekend. I've managed to cut my time to a day.

[VPStoltz]

63. I know how you feel. I have a brother, Viet vet - fucked up, whom I

can't be in room with for more than maybe a half hour. EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault, nobody knows anything but him, all Black people are on welfare, he's getting screwed by the government (even though he loves THIS government) blah, blah, blah. We have had to agree to not talk about anything that could possibly turn into a conversation about reality.

[DainBramaged]

33. Gas, food, consumer goods at all time high, wages don't keep pace

Ask them to show you how the money is spreading throughout the economy. And ask them why this corrupt Administration took food and energy costs out of the inflation index when they captured the White House? Ask them why commodities are at historic highs, and why haven't wages kept up.


Ask them why 11000 people showed up for 400 jobs at a Wal Mart in California if they think war is good for the economy.

[norml]

34. War makes gas cost more.

Especially when the war is in the countries with the largest oil reserves.

It's been a war to take control of the oil, to keep it from flooding the market, to assure what they call "price stability".

Things being as they are gas costing more tanks the economy.

There's your argument.

And no, the "terrorists" wouldn't take over if we leave.

Since only 6% of the insurgents come from outside of Iraq, it's most likely that if we left the locals would be better able to throw out the outsiders and get back to pumping the oil, as they did in the 90s.

[spanone]

35. I would fake an illness.

sorry, love you all, would love to be there...

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. We're taking two cars so I can sneak out when it gets too

uncomfortable. :-)

[stillcool]

36. War is always good...

for somebody's economy...which is the only reason for war. The only thing we manufacture these days is weapons and our continual sale of these ensures more war. If people have a total disregard for human life, why bother?'War is a Racket' by Smedley Butler

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. We should have been paying closer attention to see how these

companies managed to survive during peace time.

[stillcool]

53. Has there ever been peace time?

Looking back at the Iran weapons for hostages deal...and supplying the Contra's..Saudi Arabia...Iraq...while there's money to be made there is no peace.

[Kailassa]

37. Can I kill you if it makes me richer?

Ask them, what is the difference between a country waging war on another because it's good for the economy, and you assaulting your neighbours so you can steal their jewelery.

Or, if invading someone's country is good for their economy, why not play turn and turn about, and let Iraq invade America next year.

I've been disappointed to find that republican friends who I thought were just misguided, knew all along this war was just for oil and corrupt corporational contracts. And now that gas prices are sky-rocketting, they are starting to get real mad.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. Your last paragraph says it all.

They KNEW that Bush was misleading the country, and now that it's turning badly they're having regrets.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

64. YES. We could have an immoral invasion and war, as long as it was "easy",

and cheap, and we won.

Now that it's not "easy" OR cheap, and it's by no means clear that we'll "win", whatever that may be, now come the regrets. And, in some instances, the call for nuclear genocide, because after all, we still have THAT "easy" "I Win" button, even if we sacrifice all pretense of morality (although I think the embrace of torture by shrubco and the RW hate media has pretty much accomplished that already).

The thing that the freaking IDIOTS fail to understand, all morality considerations aside, if we ever invoked THAT option, it would instantly insure that all nations in the world would band together, in secret or in the open, and plot our demise. It might take 20 years or more, but they WOULD be successful.

[I Have A Dream]

75. Great post, MM!

There's so much truth in this post.

[Demobrat]

39. If it's the slightest bit credible

given your age and situation, tell them you have enlisted and will be leaving soon for boot camp and then Iraq.

And be sure to ask them, just out of curiosity, why they think the price of gas and heating oil is going up exponentially, even though the US now occupies Iraq, and who they think is profiting?

[jody]

41. War is good for the economy but it's bad for society. n/t

[orwell]

43. Simple

Don't even try the morality argument. It is tangential to the real economic argument.

The reason War is not good for the economy is that it is a bad investment - whether or not you do it with deficit spending.

The apportionment of tax revenues for infrastructure (ie. power plants, transportation infrastructure, education infrastructure, civil society infrastructure) has direct lasting economic benefits to both public and private economic efficiency and therefore growth. War does none of these things. In fact, it destroys economic infrastructure. If the war is waged on your own soil, it destroys your own economic infrastructure. If waged on foreign soil, it destroys your ability to put these public and private resources to work on domestic investment (infrastructure.)

In essence, it is mal-investment. It destroys rather than creates.

Now in certain instances, a society has no choice but to devote resources to defense (WWII for example). But given the option of investment in war technology vs. peacetime technology, any economist would tell you the latter is far more preferable from an investment standpoint.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

45. Point by Point:

For the "War is Good for the Economy" folks:

Well since they work for Lockheed it would be hard to make an argument that would persuade them, since most wars would be good for THEIR SPECIFIC company.

As others have posted, WWII is the main exception in that it catapulted the American economy to the forefront of the world. There was massive spending to build up this infrastructure. The situation is not remotely comparable to something like the Iraq invasion, as huge sacrifices were demanded of all Americans, those fighting abroad and ordinary citizens at home.

I'm not aware that any war since then, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I etc. have had a similar effect on the American economy like WWII or even anything remotely like it. Mostly the spending in these modern wars goes to specialized war companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Halliburton etc. with little spillover into the general economy. But since most wingers are selfish, your Lockheed working relatives will probably not be willing to see beyond their own personal situation.

As far as the war mongering older relatives, I guess the main question is, do they think the cause of killing these brown Muslim people would be worth their own family members dying for it? If their son or grandson died in Iraq would they think that a worthy cause? Of course, even if they didn't think this, it's easy for them to just say it to contradict you.

If they truly believe that it would be worth their own flesh and blood dying for, you may not be able to convince them.

[Jose Diablo]

46. Spending by the government does create jobs

However, the jobs created are to build a product that is used for a short time. There is little lasting legacy of the products produced.

If we need an example take a cruise missile. After it's used one time, what can it do?

War is like that. It destroys both material things and life.

If government is going to spend, wouldn't it be better to spend on things that have a future? Like say building infrastructure that increases people's efficiency.

Imagine that instead of this war on Iraq, that money had been spent building solar collectors to generate electrical energy? That is far more profitable than spending on things that when used, they become worthless. $200B could have installed about 45 gigawatt's of solar generating capacity. How many stationary fuel generating plants could have that have replaced with 45 gigawatt's of generating capacity? And what effect would this have had on the price of gasoline at the pump if the fuel that currently is being used for the oil burning stationary electric generators was now directed to gasoline station pumps.

War is profitable for only a very few people. The government spending an equivalent amount of money on something that truly had future value would have made the war for oil unnecessary. But I expect the republican and democrats that are invested in war material will always want the government to spend on the industries they (the politicians) have invested in.

If we reach the point where there is no oil, we can thank the short sighted people for frittering away the money we had on useless objectives, rather than working for a permanent solution to the real problem and developing alternate energy sources. At that point though, it will be too late. We wasted the money fighting a war rather than building what we needed to build to make a better future.

And of course, many of our sons and daughters will be dead fighting to make the war profiteers more rich.

[Telly Savalas]

69. Amen.

[housewolf]

50. You talk about the morality (or rather the immorality) of ...

profitting and building an economy based on destruction and death, how such acts damage the souls and spirits of not only those who participate in such action but also of those who support such immorality, including the soul of the nation itself.

[The Backlash Cometh]

52. I've bookmarked this page. THANKS EVERYONE!

[PA Democrat]

54. Putting the same amount of money into rebuilding our country's

infrastructure, into education, into universal health care, into research would be MUCH better for the economy.

[MadisonProgressive]

55. Id' say: "I'll say a prayer for you tonight"

[More Than A Feeling]

56. It's blood money

Legalizing drug running and murder for hire would boost the economy too. 'nuff said.

[bluestateguy]

57. It's an outdated argument

Back in the days when the US was not a military superpower, spending only a small percentage of its GDP on war materials, obvioulsy going to war woukld generate economic growth because of the increased government spending and employment attributable to the war.

But with sustained peacetime high spending on defense then it doesn't make much difference if we are at war or at peace, unless it is a truly total war like the Civil War or WWII. The Iraq war is not even close to being in that category yet.

[deutsey]

58. Read Zinn's chapter in "People's History of the US" called

"War is the Health of the State" (about WWI).

"American capitalism needed international rivalry--and periodic war--to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor, supplanting the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements. How conscious of this were individual entrepreneurs and statesmen? That is hard to know. But their actions, even if half-conscious, instinctive drives to survive, matched such a scheme."

[reprehensor]

60. The Myth of the War Economy by Joseph Stiglitz

The Myth of the War Economy

War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times. The second world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth. Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon.

Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy. That conflict contributed mightily to the onset of the recession of 1991 (which was probably the key factor in denying the first President Bush re-election in 1992).

The current situation is far more akin to the Gulf war than to wars that may have contributed to economic growth. Indeed, the economic effects of a second war against Iraq would probably be far more adverse. The second world war called for total mobilisation, requiring a country's total resources, and that is what wiped out unemployment. Total war means total employment.

snip

Bush's (admittedly wavering) commitment to fiscal prudence means that much, perhaps most, of the war costs will be offset by cuts elsewhere. Investments in education, health, research, and the environment will almost inevitably be crowded out. Accordingly, war will be unambiguously bad in terms of what really counts: ordinary people's standard of living.

more@link

[iamahaingttta]

61. Why don't you just tell them...

... to go fuck themselves?

[mondo joe]

62. Simple: ANY massive national undertaking is good for the economy -

building fantastic levees, undertaking a clean up the environment, or massive education project - any could boost the economy in the same way.

War, however, has unanticipated and uncontrolled expenses to say nothing of loss of life, and presents the far most risky and least benneficial "economy boost".

[mandyky]

65. While war might be "good" for the short term economy,

we are going into debt and deficit. Not only that 2-3% growth of the economy per year is not that good of a growth. And then there's is a question of what part of the economy war is good for - poverty is up, real wages are down, consumer confidence is down, we're robbing Peter (domestic spending) to feed Paul (the WARS), so when things like Katrina happen we are cut off at the knees.

I guess if you own stock in Halliburton, GE, or Lockheed, you might say your economic future is looking brighter, but do you really want endless wars to boost your portfolio if it means bankrupting America?

[Ksec]

66. Slavery would be good for the economy also

Legalisng prostitution and drugs would be good for it also.

Lets just go that route.

People dying in unjust illegal wars is never good for the country. The tradeoff for the economy doesnt add up. Ask them if they will sacrifice a few of "their" kids for the good of the economy?

If they wont then why do they expect me or you to do it?

[Miss Chybil]

67. Ask them, if they'll let you shoot them a few times, so you can buy more

bullets and give Wal-Mart a boost.

[cry baby]

68. Economy was good during Clinton years, we weren't at war! nt

[MODemocrat]

70. Ask them to explain to you why war is good for the economy

Most of them will be so shocked they will just have their mouth open with nothing to say. That's why they are always making these remarks, no one seems to challenge them. Ask them prove it!

[Neshanic]

71. Agree.It is good. Then tell them that the good times are going to..

last for so long, it will make Vietnam look like a Cliff Notes war. Agree and say that an all out war with the whole region will be great for Lockheed, and as the years fly by with no resolution, they can sit in their new cars, or homes knowing that they are safe from not having a job. Of course there will be other perks as the draft is reinstated and their children will be all ready to suit up in the coming years. War is good, and let them know you agree, as the social fabric of the country shreds, their friend's kids will not come back the same, and maybe not at all.

Ask them how long the war should be. 10, 20, 30 years? That's job security.

Nice trade for having the extra cash for that Harley.

[applegrove]

72. Any government spending will help the economy out. It could be government

spending on health care that would make workers more productive in the USA or it could be amazing science programs in all public schools. You can spend the money on what you want. Doesn't have to be death and destruction. Oh - and if you go into too much debt doing it - you cause inflation and kill the economy.

[Poiuyt]

73. Can't Lockhead's expertise be redirected to other areas like aviation and

space travel? I'm sure other military contractors could work on energy or the country's infrastructure. I'm sure if America put as much energy into some of our other problems as we do into developing bombs, we could solve a lot of problems. There are a lot of brilliant people working in the defense industry, if we could harness that know-how and direct it into something productive, America could be leading the world once again.

[Jim__]

74. Are they using that argument as a justification for the Iraq war?

It seems like a morally bankrupt argument.