Question for CEOs: Can Capitalism Survive Sans War?

[coberst]

Buffy

 

I think you make a good point regarding Wal-Mart and war. Wal-Mart would not be advantaged by war in the first degree but it would be advantaged by the fact the the total economy would be advantaged.

 

Many people who study such things indicate, from what I read, that it was WWII that saved capitalism and not the new deal. The economy turned around because the nation went to war thereby invigorating its morale and its economy.

 

Our (US)nation is driven by the capitalistic ideology and on the practical level our policy makers are the capitians of industry. We would not be so war like if capitalism did not profit from war.

[Zythryn]

Many people who study such things indicate, from what I read, that it was WWII that saved capitalism and not the new deal. The economy turned around because the nation went to war thereby invigorating its morale and its economy.

 

I have also read the exact opposite.

That the loss of spending on military bases when the soldiers their are deployed, plus the money transferred from the private sector to the government (typically via taxes and bonds), and the loss of lives and property is much greater than the gain of select businesses due to increased government spending.

 

Our (US)nation is driven by the capitalistic ideology and on the practical level our policy makers are the capitians of industry. We would not be so war like if capitalism did not profit from war.

 

I think this has more to do with human nature, than capitalism. I would again argue the point that war helps the economy more than peace. Buffy had some excellent examples of that.

[Buffy]

Wal-Mart would not be advantaged by war in the first degree but it would be advantaged by the fact the the total economy would be advantaged.

No, war is not good for economies:

• It can put people to work, but producing war materiel that is funded by deficit spending that usually leads to inflation.
  
• Businesses are forced to produce what the government tells them to, and often (WWII was an excellent example) they are forced to turn over trade secrets to their competitors to rapidly increase production
  
• The products are not resold or produce demand for services, so the multiplier effect is eliminated: this is the biggest source of real economic growth.
  
• The increased production often does not add to infrastructure that is useful in peacetime, in fact it often produces infrastructure in places that we have to give up (unless we are empire building), like all those air and naval bases in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. that we built in the 40s, 50s and 60s.
  
• The massive restructuring that must occur post-war is extremely expensive (see below), and takes years to recover from.
  

Why would anyone want any of this?

Many people who study such things indicate, from what I read, that it was WWII that saved capitalism and not the new deal.

There are some extremists who have published such statements, but there is little evidence to support it. WWII was followed by one of the worst recessions in US history (other than the depression) from 1947-1950, that was one of the main reasons why it was such a miracle that Truman was elected in 1948. In addition, the Marshall Plan sucked away a lot of useful capital that benefitted Europeans far more than it did any capitalist cabal supposedly controlling everything. This investment did pay off in spades, but not for another 20 years, and investors will rarely wait more than one quarter for big payoffs to start rolling in.

We would not be so war like if capitalism did not profit from war.

Who is this that you're refering to with the "Royal We"? We're "warlike?" Maybe Cheney's neo-con buds are warlike, but "America" is hardly warlke, and *traditionally* it is the *conservatives* who are isolationist, and the socialistic (i.e. anti-capitalists) liberals like Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy who "got us into wars" usually for *human rights* purposes! Of course in recent years the neo-cons in the Reagan and BushII administrations have been acting like 18th-century Imperialists, but even then, its *extremely* hard to follow the money back to "Capitalism" in general, although certainly well-placed cronies like Halliburton have benefited: Iraq has been *horrible* for the economy and for most business.

 

Can you provide us with any evidence to the contrary? Dogmatic, unsupported statements will not get you very far on a science site!

 

In the eating,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Power is not limited in scope .. never before in the history of man .. has one had sooooo much power .. due to the evolution of technology ..

Uh, Egypt? Rome? Happens over and over again throughout history. What's really different in the 21st century is the advent of multinational firms that can basically manuever their way around many governments: they still need to be careful, but they *can* avoid the situation common in the past where their home government can simply tell them what to do.

The Governments .. may be the only Capitalists .. and they have ALL the power .. !!

Can you explain what you mean here? Governments are lousy capitalists, mainly because there is no profit motive for the Governments themselves. Governments are really only justified by the extent to which they support the *common* welfare, and to the extent they become corrupt--Teapot Dome, Tammany Hall, Halliburton--they tend to get thrown out of office *because* there are *other capitalists* who are getting cheated out of the "spoils".

 

Monolithic conspiracy theories of government usually do not hold up to scrutiny, although I'd encourage you to provide evidence to support your points.

 

Paranoid,

Buffy