1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11204/all-contracts-are-political-at-least-now-anyway/

All contracts are political (at least now, anyway)

December 9, 2009 by

What just happened? A 90-year-old winner of a Medal of Honor pulls the political card to trump a contract he freely signed. And the White House is involved (at some level, anyway).

If only the homeowners association would have put up a fight.

Note: So what was the supposed reason for our involvement in Europe during WWII? The reason detailed in my government school textbooks. I seem to have forgotten.

{ 54 comments }

newson December 11, 2009 at 1:48 am

carn says:
“Compare Venezuela to Cuba, Venezuela is able to afford military equipment and pay for guerilias in other countries, while Cuba is dead broke.”

venezuela has never had anywhere near the socialization of cuba, not even now is it anyways close. (though chavez has been presiding over an enormous capital destruction).

look past the obvious to chile: another small country like cuba, no oil and yet comparatively well-off for latin america. even though the per capita gdp is about the same for chile and venezuela, the venezuelan figure is likely to be suspect, as you can see here:
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/5766.html

it’s not the austrians who are wrong, but you who seem to believe that war is immune to the laws of economics. remember an army marches on its stomach, and it’s an enormous burden on the rest to produce the necessary wealth to keep the killing going.

substitute “the kalashnikov” for “the pencil”. the story stays the same.

carn December 11, 2009 at 4:52 am

“look past the obvious to chile: another small country like cuba, no oil and yet comparatively well-off for latin america. even though the per capita gdp is about the same for chile and venezuela,”

Chile is so good of because of the economic polictics under Pinochet. And Pinochet was a authorian right wing dictator. For such a dictatorship economic policy is just a mean to an end and they are ideological flexible to implement either more or less socialistic policies. And for this reason it might well have benn realized by the nazis the risk socialistic economic policies would have been to futher their goals.

“it’s not the austrians who are wrong, but you who seem to believe that war is immune to the laws of economics. remember an army marches on its stomach, and it’s an enormous burden on the rest to produce the necessary wealth to keep the killing going.

substitute “the kalashnikov” for “the pencil”. the story stays the same.”

I dont claim immunity form the laws of economics. In the hypothetical scenario of Nazis neutralizing GB and subduing Soviets together with Japan and afterwards acting against the US i would still put my bet on the US.
But i didnt claim, that Nazis would have conquered the World if the US would not have fought them. I claimed, that the confrontation was unavoidable and the only choice left was when and where and how.

Further while a socialistic economy uses up capital, a war forces both sides of the conflict to use up capital. But the amount the sides use up, depends also on other things than economic laws, because the amount used up depends upon the damage done by the other side. And the damage you can inflict upon the other side does not only depend on your economic strength but also upon how you use it. And this last thing is military strategy, where to place your forces, where to attack, when to attack and many other things, which are not only chance dependent(i can give examples where single individual decisions had a huge impact on the used up “capital”) but also in which austrians thinkers had zero expertise(or was one of them a succesful military leader?).

So for this part of the problem, austrian thinking cannot shed any light.

What it can demonstrate is, that the US would have had the greater economic power(more so, if Rossevelt had not become president which likely could have lead to the decision to stay out of the war) and that Nazis would have faced the risk of declining economic power – the clock would have been ticking against Nazi Germany.

But that cannot determine what damage the Nazis could have done in the time they had left.

And about kalashnikovs, you froget, that jet engines and medium range missiles, both very important military achievements, were both developed in germany 11 years after nazi take over and while every german city that could burn was set aflame. So likely for military equipment germany would still for a long time have been on a par with US.
And the only reason Nazis didnt try to get the bomb seriously was, because they had a distrust of “jewish” science. It took the US 5 years to acquire the bomb. After stealing the important informations the soviets were able to get the bomb in 3 years.

If Nazis would have lasted longer and realized, that the “jewish” science was correct, they would have had the bomb around 50. Superior(having jets instead of propellers is a large advantage) bombers to deliver them in a 3000 km radius and somewhere around 55 ICBMs.

That they would have been bankrupt by 1980,70 or 60 would have been of little matter in that case.

(Yes germany was bancrupt at the end of WW2, but it would have been far later bancrupt, if the they had not lost the war.)

Iesha Swefford April 14, 2011 at 2:06 pm

Now i am accessing this page via our Iphone4 and I can’t get the complete image to be able to load. I Basically assumed you should know.

Malcom Christopherse June 17, 2011 at 7:26 am

Fantastic web site. A lot of helpful info here. I am sending it to some buddies ans additionally sharing in delicious. And of course, thank you to your sweat!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: