In his now-famous war column today, David Broder writes:
Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
Brazen, yes, but the widespread shock at this stuff strikes me as implausible. People on the left and right have been saying this for years. Historians have long taught this false version of history. Every time there is a natural disaster or war, a hoard of pundits celebrate how great this is for the economy. In fact, the above version of events is how the Cold War started in 1947-48. It is how the U.S. got involved in WW2. It is how Clinton’s wars began and Bush’s too. What is shocking about this except that Broder actually wrote it in a column?
{ 23 comments }
We don’t need to go to war to stimulate the economy, we just need to break a bunch of windows!
Say the 911 attack planes had come down in Cabrini Green just before it was razed . . . .
Stripped of all the the ranting and biographical background, the essential point of Mein Kampf is the same one made by Broder. Only great people win wars, therefore wars make people great, and what we (the superior people) need is more wars.
The supposition of racial or national superiority is implicit in Broder’s column since he is obviously not advocating war as something that would benefit, say, Iran.
Actually, and apologies to the originator of this idea, but what Broder and others like Paul Krugman are actually saying and advocating is “murder is good for the economy.”
Forget your politics or understanding of economics, this is completely despicable.
Good grief, another war is the last thing people need. This is proof to me that this man is not only pure evil but completely insane. He needs to see a doctor, a psychiatrist, and an exorcist, all at the same time.
Enter Mises.
The one universally observable truth of Christianity is the doctrine of our sin nature. Some of us hide it better than others. Mises will not cure THAT!
Walt: War in the past has stimulated the economy. However, most historians get the reason wrong. War in the past has stimulated the economy because it entailed digging a lot of holes and filling them in – classic Keynesian Economics. (Read Paul Krugman’s article “There are no Austrians in a Foxhole”). However, the nature of warfare has changed. We employ thing like drones instead of troops on the ground – no need to dig latrines. So I’m not sure that a war against Iran would have the stimulating effect that Keynesians expect.
But this doesn’t stimulate. It just burns down resources, time, money, savings and plant.
You might as well randomly go to the street and blow up every tenth house, then call that stimulation.
Plus we have portable toilets now for what soldiers there are anyway so even that minimal stimulus is gone.
… plus now we have laser guided bombs – their damage is more targeted – not so many broken windows = less stimulus!
Some background on Broder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S._Broder
A hilarious analysis of Brad DeLong’s reaction:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gonzalo-lira-highlights-contradictions-life-keynesian-fluffer
That is fucking hilarious, thanks for posting.
I forget where I heard this:
If war is such a good thing for the economy, the government should simply build a million war ships, take them all out to the Pacific Ocean, and sink ‘em all. That way, the economy would prosper indefinitely. Of course, one needs merely to think of this “solution” for a couple of second before one realises just how rediculous it is. Raw materials, which might otherwise be put to use in the production of things people actually use to improve their lives, would be lost to the ocean’s floor. And, such an activity would divert labour away from producing goods and services that consumers actually wish to consume. The reality, therefore, is that war, and in fact all statist spending, is bad for the economy.
Yours,
Alex Peak
The purpose of war is the redistribution of assets. The destruction of assets is an unintended consequence. Has there ever been a war in which the rich on the winning side didn’t get richer? Wealth is always relative, never absolute. “All I want is my fair share and just a little bit of yours.”
Seems to me the actual stimulation of the economy comes from willingness to work hard, produce more, obey leaders and sacrifice out of fear or patriotism. The global warming bugaboo was supposed to replace the war bugaboo but it’s turning out to be a hard sell, not nearly as imminent as people with different colored skin taking over the world. Besides, we’re running low on credible enemies at the moment which may explain why China is now being assigned boogeyman status.
When someone mentions the need for people to “make sacrifices” you know they need to be the first one to go.
Nonsense. Why is another war going to stimulate the economy when the two we’ve been fighting now for years have not? If war was economic stimulus we ought be headed for the moon economically with the trillions spent over the last few years. Where do these people come from…
There are two parallel economies, for the working class and for our owners. As long as the wealth distribution is shrinking for the bottom 80% and increasing for the top 20% everything is going according to plan.
Hey billwald,
Have you ever heard of stock? I have heard that anyone with enough money to open a bank account can buy partial ownership in a company, and even get a share of the profits. Using this amazing new development, anyone can become an “owner”. Perhaps you should look into it.
p.s. Is it truly your assertion that the bottom 80% of the world has less wealth than in the past? Or are you merely whining that the richest 20% have improved more than the poorest 80%, despite improvements across the board?
“Why is another war going to stimulate the economy when the two we’ve been fighting now for years have not?”
Because this time a Democrat will be the one ordering the murders of innocent civilians.
anyone interested in the real reasons for a possible iranian conflict should read “the transparent cabal”:
http://bit.ly/cCIC2z
the agenda is not the economy.
Comments on this entry are closed.