Putting aside the moral obligation to help those we deem in need, do you think it's all been a front just to stimulate the economy and secure oil contracts? Does our government crave too much power outside our borders? Would we be as strong of an economy if we withdrew all our troops tomorrow?
We've lost a lot of money in wars, but I suppose we have to balance that with how much we've made in "protecting our interests."
Can you really say that? The defense contracts, the halliburton's, the jobs created, securing oil reserves... war has always been a huge stimulator for the American economy. It's just sad it involves killing and brainwashing people.
We were right after World War II and we pretty much always will be with all of Africa, but our economy and population have grown so much and we've gotten vivid enough examples of domestic rioting and unrest that we don't want to risk the effects of a commodity or economic drought that we had in the '20s and '30s. Continuous energy and raw materials supply in a fully industrialized economy with a top 5 population is a governmental imperative, and no one's ever going to relinquish military engagement as a trade or diplomatic tool. Nowadays we're a little more like that modeling or talent agent who charges $10,000 for head shots, or expenses all of your flights and lodging to shows and shoots, so you end up in hock to them.
A lot of liberals forget all the jobs that the defense sector creates. I am by no means a warmonger, but there are a lot of people who have jobs now because of it.
We've financed a lot of debt for military incursions on behalf of our global manufacturing firms who have made trillions in wholesale and retail marketing while paying pennies on the dollar for raw materials compared to their market value. We could have probably forestalled a lot of extreme global poverty and still maintained relative wealth and prosperity at home if we'd more fully incorporated commodity producing nations in a larger portion of the downstream supply chain, and built educational and vocational infrastructure to help mitigate civil unrest.
Geezus. The defense sector is paid by the government which is actually who is creating those jobs. Those same jobs could be created by the government to teach kids or build bridges or anything else. I'd certainly prefer that to building an ever expensive war machine to police the world.
LMFAO I support a very strong military but stop it with the jobs argument. Lots of government spending creates jobs.
Not trying to be a pedant, but IMO war profiteer is too narrow and specific a term to cover all the things OP is worried about, IMO.
Ultimately, the point of creating jobs is to create wealth by producing things that increase standard of living. A whole lot of what defense industries create is a black hole, pissing away wealth into the dirt. They can do this because they have a single customer who doesn't give a rat's ass about profit/loss or efficiency, and the people in charge of determining what toys we need are the same people who play with those toys. It is well documented that money spent on infrastructure brings along additional productivity gains multiple times as large as the amount spent. Defense spending doesn't amplify at all. The closest analogy for defense spending I can think of is homeowners insurance. At the moment, the insurance agents have convinced us that we need to spend like half of our annual income on coverage for our home.
From a philosophical standpoint, yes, we'd be a stronger economy if we did. One could argue that our Navy and bases all over the world helped to develop trade. However, I'm of the opinion that opening trade with armies and force imposes a cost upon the entire economy as a whole. The economy would work better if resources weren't being devoted to the destruction of other economies throughout the world. War is the anti-thesis of economic development. Just from the standpoint of ideals, it should be avoided at all costs for that reason. Free trade and mutually beneficial exchange should be the basis of society -- not conquest and control. In my judgement, the problems that stem from the latter are what prevent economically undeveloped places in the world from improving the quality of life in those same places, and what cause economic instability with our system. And furthermore, the mindset of conquest and control of people and resources is immoral because at its base it is a system in which those with power profit from the subjugation of the meek. But I'm an idealist. We can't change the nature of man. Power over others will corrupt anyone.
And there are a lot of innocent people dead to give those people what amounts to scraps from the table.
Yes, war materials do create wealth, by printing money on government debt, that enters the cycle of wages, consumer spending and taxes that pay down the debt. But you could just as easily be making bulldozers as tanks and give them away to developing countries to create wealth there to counter radicalism. But charity isn't as compelling as military power.
