This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
War Causes Inflation ... And Inflation Allows The Government to Start Unnecessary Wars
War almost always causes inflation.
As liberal economist James Galbraith wrote in 2004:
War causes inflation.
Every
major war in the past century brought inflation to some degree. And so
did two upheavals in the Middle East, the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and
the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which did not directly involve the
United States, except through their effect on the price of oil. Why is
this so? The big reason is that wars must be paid for, somehow. They
require resources that civilians would otherwise use. Those resources
must be diverted to the war effort. Usually, inflation is the easiest
way. World War I was largely financed by inflation, and so were the
Revolutionary and Civil Wars before that. So, though on a smaller
scale, was Vietnam.
Inflation applies the law of the jungle to
war finance. Prices and profits rise, wages and their purchasing power
fall. Thugs, profiteers and the well connected get rich. Working people
and the poor make out as they can. Savings erode, through the unseen
mechanism of the "inflation tax" -- meaning that the government runs a
big deficit in nominal terms, but a smaller one when inflation is
factored in.
***
There is profiteering. Firms with monopoly
power usually keep some in reserve. In wartime, if the climate is
permissive, they bring it out and use it. Gas prices can go up when
refining capacity becomes short -- due partly to too many mergers. More
generally, when sales to consumers are slow, businesses ought to cut
prices -- but many of them don't. Instead, they raise prices to meet their income targets and hope that the market won't collapse.
***
Is there another way? The answer is yes, but it isn't easy.
In
wars past -- notably in World War II and Korea -- the job was done by
steeply progressive taxes including taxes on excess profits, by "forced
saving" (which was an essentially compulsory private holding of public
debt), and by price control. Interest rates were frozen at 2 percent
on government bonds -- and essentially at 0 on bank deposits. The
principle was: No one profits from the war.
This
combination kept inflation down -- prices were stable from 1942
through 1945. Not many grew rich off that war. Instead, my generation
grew up with series EE bonds to our names. They were the promise that
those working to win the war would see some of the material fruits of
their labor later, when peacetime production returned.
Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul agreed in 2007:
Congress
and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that
makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new
spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal
Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating
new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress
leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of
political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington,
even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.
The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war.
Economist
Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve
Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I. Without the
ability to create new money, the federal government never could have
afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material. Prior to that,
American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of
which have limits. But government printing presses, at least in
theory, have no limits. That's why the money supply has nearly tripled
just since 1990.
For perspective, consider our ongoing military
commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1
trillion in today's dollars over 55 years. What do we have to show for
it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear
weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as
their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the
grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea
give little thought to what was gained or lost. The Korean conflict
should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military
occupation of any region.
The [hundreds of billions] we've
officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is
much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid
budgets. As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy
in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it's really worth it. Congress
should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people
can judge for themselves.
Blanchard Economic Research pointed out in 2001:
War
has a profound effect on the economy, our government and its fiscal
and monetary policies. These effects have consistently led to high
inflation.
***
David
Hackett Fischer is a Professor of History and Economic History at
Brandeis. [H]is book, The Great Wave, Price Revolutions and the Rhythm
of History ... finds that ... periods of high inflation are caused by,
and cause, a breakdown in order and a loss of faith in political
institutions. He also finds that war is a triggering influence on
inflation, political disorder, social conflict and economic disruption.The
type of inflation that is associated with wars usually arises from
increases in aggregate demand. In time of war, government spending for
military purposes stimulates demand throughout an economy, at the same
time that a shift of workers from productive labor into war production
causes a decline in aggregate supply.War also causes the type of
inflation that results from a rapid expansion of money and credit. "In
World War I, the American people were characteristically unwilling to
finance the total war effort out of increased taxes. This had been true
in the Civil War and would also be so in World War II and the Vietnam
War. Much of the expenditures in World War I, were financed out of the
inflationary increases in the money supply." (See "American Economic
History," Scheiber, Vatter and Faulkner)War usually leads to the type of inflation which is caused by inflationary expectations. Professor Fischer explains:
"It
occurs when people begin to raise prices not because of actual changes
in supply or demand or cost or the size of the money supply, but out of
fear that some such changes might happen."
***
Professor Fischer also provides an interesting perspective on war-related inflations in the 20th century:
"Inflation
surged after America joined World War I in 1917, then declined after
1919, but to pre-war levels. After World War II, Korea and Vietnam,
war-inflations were not followed by a decline at all. Prices continued
to climb."Professor Fischer had some interesting things to say about the Korean War:
"In
its economic impact the Korean War was similar to the world wars that
had preceded it. Once again, inflationary pressures surged throughout
the world. In 1950, wholesale prices jumped 12% in the United States,
18% in Germany, 21% in Britain, 28% in France, and 32% in Sweden."Professor
Fischer discusses the inflation that took place as part of the Vietnam
War and as part of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. He says that the Vietnam
War was not the pivotal event in the acceleration of inflation during
the 1960s, although he admits that the Johnson administration's
decision to expand public spending for social welfare at the same time
that it fought a major war in Southeast Asia, without a large increase
in taxes, was a major miscalculation.
Other economists agree with Professor Fischer's link between inflation and war.
James
Grant, the respected editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer,
supplies us with the most timely perspective on the effect of war on
inflation in the September 14 issue of his newsletter:"War
is inflationary. It is always wasteful no matter how just the cause.
It is cost without income, destruction financed (more often than not)
by credit creation. It is the essence of inflation."***
Roger
Bootle, in his book, The Death of Inflation, also traced the historic
link between inflation and war in America's 225-year history:"This
country's first two experiences with high inflation were during the
American War of Independence (1775-83) and during the Civil War. There
was also high inflation associated with the First World War; the
unifying theme running through inflation episodes are the occurrence of
bad times, often as a result of war or its aftermath.""After
the Second World War, inflation became the norm everywhere in the
industrial world. There was another surge of inflation during the
Korean War, which took inflation in the U.S. above 9% in 1951 (and
wholesale price inflation into double digits)."
"The inflation
that accompanied the Vietnam War and the Yom Kippur War, and oil price
shocks in the 1970s, led people to increase their inflationary
expectations, which aggravated inflation itself."
Similarly,
in her book, Money Meltdown, Judy Shelton also traces the relationship
between war and inflation from the Civil War through Vietnam:
"'We
tried to finance the Vietnam War and the Great Society programs
without a tax increase,' admits Charles L. Schultze, Johnson's budget
director at the time, 'and clearly that started our course of
inflation.'"
"Political leaders always have tended to take the
view that in time of war the nation must do whatever is necessary to
succeed, and the financial repercussions can be dealt with later.
Johnson was only following the pattern that had been adhered to by his
predecessors ...."
Libertarian economics writer Lew Rockwell noted in 2008:
You
can line up 100 professional war historians and political scientists
to talk about the 20th century, and not one is likely to mention the
role of the Fed in funding US militarism. And yet it is true: the Fed is
the institution that has created the money to fund the wars. In this
role, it has solved a major problem that the state has confronted for
all of human history. A state without money or a state that must tax its
citizens to raise money for its wars is necessarily limited in its
imperial ambitions. Keep in mind that this is only a problem for the
state. It is not a problem for the people. The inability of the state to
fund its unlimited ambitions is worth more for the people than every
kind of legal check and balance. It is more valuable than all the
constitutions every devised.
***
The connection between war and inflation, then, dates long before the creation of the Federal Reserve.
***
Before
the creation of the Federal Reserve, the idea of American entry into
the conflict that became World War I would have been inconceivable. In
fact, it was a highly unpopular idea, and Woodrow Wilson himself
campaigned on a platform that promised to keep us out of war. But with a
money monopoly, all things seem possible. It was a mere four years
after the Fed was invented under the guise of scientific policy
planning that the real agenda became obvious. The Fed would fund the US
entry into World War I.
It was not only entry alone that was
made possible. World War I was the first total war. It involved nearly
the whole of the civilized world, and not only their governments but
also the civilian populations, both as combatants and as targets. It
has been described as the war that ended civilization in the
19th-century sense in which we understand that term. That is to say, it
was the war that ended liberty as we knew it. What made it possible
was the Federal Reserve. And not only the US central bank; it was also
its European counterparts. This was a war funded under the guise of
scientific monetary policy.
***
Reflecting on the calamity of this war, Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1919
One can say without exaggeration that inflation is an indispensable
means of militarism. Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare
become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would
set in much earlier.***
The story
of central banking is one step removed from the story of atom bombs and
death camps. There is a reason the state has been unrestrained in the
last 100 years, and that reason is the precise one that many people
think of as a purely technical issue that is too complicated for mere
mortals.
Fast-forward to the Iraq War, which has all the
features of a conflict born of the power to print money. There was a
time when the decision to go to war involved real debate in the House
of Commons or the US House of Representatives. And what was this debate
about? It was about resources and the power to tax. But once the
executive state was unhinged from the need to rely on tax dollars and
did not have to worry about finding willing buyers for its unbacked
debt instruments, the political debate about war was silenced.
In
the entire run-up to war, George Bush just assumed as a matter of
policy that it was his decision alone whether to invade Iraq. The
objections by Ron Paul and some other members of Congress and vast
numbers of the American population were reduced to little more than
white noise in the background. Imagine if he had to raise the money for
the war through taxes. It never would have happened. But he didn't have
to. He knew the money would be there. So despite a $200 billion
deficit, a $9 trillion debt, $5 trillion in outstanding debt
instruments held by the public, a federal budget of $3 trillion, and
falling tax receipts in 2001, Bush contemplated a war that has cost
$525 billion dollars — or $4,681 per household. Imagine if he had gone
to the American people to request that. What would have happened? I
think we know the answer to that question. And those are government
figures; the actual cost of this war will be far higher — perhaps
$20,000 per household.
***
If the state has the power
and is asked to choose between doing good and waging war, what will it
choose? Certainly in the American context, the choice has always been
for war.
And progressive economics writer Chris Martenson explains as part of his "Crash Course" on economics:
Along
came a war, the Revolutionary War, and the country found itself unable
to pay for the war with the gold and silver to be found in the
Treasury.
So a paper currency called “continentals” was
printed, and at first it was fully backed by a specified amount of real
gold and/or silver in the Treasury. But then the war proved to be
more expensive than thought, and more and more was printed. Then the
British, aware of the corrosive effects of inflation on a society,
started counterfeiting and distributing vast amounts of bogus
continentals, and soon the currency began to collapse.
Before
long, massive inflation took hold, and Abigail Adams complained
bitterly about this experience, noting that goods were hard to come by,
making life difficult.
Seen on the inflation chart, the
Revolutionary War took the general price level from a reading of “5” to
a reading of “8”. After the war, the paper continentals were utterly
rejected by the populace, who strongly preferred gold and silver. Most
interestingly, price levels promptly returned back to their prewar
levels.
The next serious bout of inflation was also associated
with a war, again due to overprinting of paper currency, and again,
upon conclusion of the war, we saw a relatively prompt return of prices
to their pre-war levels, where they stayed for an additional 30 years.
By now we are nearly 200 years into this chart, and we find that the
cost of living is roughly that same as it was in 1665. That’s a truly
fascinating concept to entertain.
But then a war came along –
the Civil War – and it was a doozy. To finance the war, the North had
to resort to printing a type of currency that still lends its name to
our own currency today. Of course, back then it really did have a
“green back.” Again we see a rapid rise of inflation as a direct
consequence of war that again returned to baseline after the crisis was
over. We are now 250 years into this story and the cost of living is
still roughly the same as it was at the start. Can you imagine?
But then another war came along, this one even bigger than any before, and again it was a highly inflationary event.
And then another war, even bigger
than any before it, which again proved inflationary. But this time,
something odd happened. Inflation did not retreat before the next war
began. Why? Two reasons. First, the country was no longer on a gold
standard, but instead a fiat paper standard administered by the Federal
Reserve, and the populace did not have another form of money to which
it could turn. And second, because this was the first time that the
war apparatus was not dismantled upon conclusion of hostilities.
Instead, full mobilization was maintained and a protracted cold war was
fought; certainly as inflationary a conflict as any shooting war ever
was.
And now if we look at the entire sweep of history, we can make an utterly obvious claim: All wars are inflationary. Period. No exceptions.
Why? Simple, really. Any time the government engages in deficit
spending, it creates the conditions for inflation. However when the
deficit spending is on legitimate infrastructure, such as roads or
bridges, that investment will slowly “pay for itself” by boosting
productivity and paving the way for the creation of additional goods
and services that will ‘soak up’ the extra cash over time.
Wars, however, are special. Vast quantities of money are spent on
things that are meant to be blown up. The money stays at home, while
the goods get sent off to be blown up. When a bomb blows up, there is
no residual benefit to the domestic economy later on. This means war
spending is the most inflationary of all spending. It’s a
double whammy – the money stays behind, working its evil magic, while
the goods disappear. Heck, even if the goods aren’t blown up, there’s
practically zero residual economic benefit to such specialized hardware,
as amazing as that technology may be.
For some reason, the
most recent pair of wars have been presented by the US mainstream press
as being relatively “pain-free” for the average citizen, despite
overwhelming historical odds to the contrary.
In fact, on
this 15-year-long chart of commodity prices, we observe that prices
bounced in a channel, marked by the green lines, for more than 10
years. However, and now hopefully unsurprisingly, shortly
after the start of the Iraq War commodity prices began marching higher
and have inflated nearly 140% in the five years since. Your gasoline
and food bills will confirm this.
So if anybody tries to tell you that you haven’t sacrificed for the war, let them know you sacrificed a large portion of your savings and your paycheck to the effort, thank you very much.
And see this.
The
bottom line is that war always causes inflation, at least when it is
funded through money-printing instead of a pay-as-you-go system of taxes
and/or bonds. It might be great for a handful of defense contractors, but war is bad for Main Street, stealing wealth from people by making their dollars worth less.
And contrary to what many pundits say, war will not lead to an economic recovery.
And
as discussed above, liberals such as James Galbraith and conservatives
such as Ron Paul agree that we wouldn't get into as many wars - and the
wars which we did wage would be ended more quickly - it if the people
were required to pay for them directly instead of war being paid out
of the "hidden tax" of inflation.
The father of modern economics - Adam Smith - agreed:
Were
the expence of war to be defrayed always by a revenue raised within the
year [instead of financing it with long-term public debt], the taxes
from which that extraordinary revenue was drawn would last no longer
than the war. The ability of private people to accumulate, though less
during the war, would have been greater during the peace than under the
system of funding. War would not necessarily have occasioned the
destruction of any old capitals, and peace would have occasioned the
accumulation of many more new. Wars
would in general be more speedily concluded, and less wantonly
undertaken. The people feeling, during the continuance of the war, the
complete burden of it, would soon grow weary of it, and government, in
order to humour them, would not be under the necessity of carrying it on
longer than it was necessary to do so. The foresight of the heavy and
unavoidable burdens of war would hinder the people from wantonly calling
for it when there was no real or solid interest to fight for. The
seasons during which the ability of private people to accumulate was
somewhat impaired, would occur more rarely, and be of shorter
continuance. Those on the contrary, during which that ability was in the
highest vigour, would be of much longer duration than they can well be
under the system of funding.
- advertisements -
Nice, if brief.
And now, Thoreau: "Sean7k measures every man's wit by his own half-wit, and so underestimates by one-half the intelligence of every man he meets."
Or Johnson: "Sir (Sean7k), your words were both good and original. Sadly, the parts that were good were not original and the parts that were original were not good."
Dis ad nauseum...
My IrishSamurai moment gone, I confess an affection for Sean7k's argument. If logic held the truth of life, then the better part of life would lay in the study of logic. Or the better part of grammar would lie in the study of logic. Or the better part of one's pastime in A Study in Scarlet. But lo, my kingdom for a trail of breadcrumbs. For methinks - now self-confused - I am full lost in the labyrinth of mine own making.
I recommend "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"; and leaving the 'Gold Leaf Distinctions' for those with nothing better to do than obsess themselves into madness. I would imagine there isn't much else for them outside of their Grandmothers' basements.
@ Sean7K:
Your fallacious, irrational gut brings up more truth than most of the pedantic blather draining from the grey matter of these self-proclaimed honourary Mensa members.
Don't sweat the petty semantics, that's their niggle and we see right through it.
Thanks. For me, this site is about education and there are too many people that can be confused by someone's rabbit hunt or attempt to malign a personality. It is obvious from their comments they are in agreement on the effects from the operations of the FED. So, that leaves a personal vendetta against GW- something better handled at his blog where he has time to respond.
It was an opportunity to add to the argument and provide a different viewpoint. It's even better when they get upset and trip themselves up.
I have to go with Sean7k on this one.
Bingo...
Just posting quotes from a bunch of morons, stretching a quote by Adam Smith, and then asserting a premise that is specious at best doesn't pass the logic test ...
Since we're picking fly shit out of pepper, how about this? War is the excuse governments use to cause inflation.
You're on the right track ...
The Common Good is the excuse governments use to cause inflation.
So war is merely one of the excuses governments use to cause inflation.
Is it really an excuse though, if the war is a defensive one?
I mean, say the US was invaded by Iraq or something and was merely trying to oust an occupier.
Would it then become:
War is one of the excuses used by imperialists to cause inflation?
In short, "War is the health of the State."
A classic quote that cannot be repeated enough!
But the concept has morphed into an even more insidious process; today, "Crisis" is the health of the state" --- and there is ALWAYS a crisis!
Excellent insight!
To add a little to a great article: The town I live in has a steel mill that made ammunition during the Revolutionary war. They sold ammunition to both sides, but you had to pay in British Pounds. At one point, Washington cut off the supply lines to the British and ran out of pounds. He then threatened to level the steel mill if they didn't accept Continentals. The mill started accepting Continentals and had to start paying the workers in Continentals. The workers felt like they were working for nothing, so they rioted and burned down half the town.
war is always the choice of the chose who will not have to fight, or lose money. buy gold, relax and have a drink at the new bar conveniently located just a few steps from wall st.
http://covert2.wordpress.com
Possible foreknowledge of the Iraq War
Jack Abramoff has indicated that he knew that the US would invade Iraq before the American public did. On March 18, 2002, Abramoff told a friend, that "I was sitting with Karl Rove, Bush's top advisor, at the NCAA basketball game, discussing Israel when [your] email came in. I showed it to him. It seems that the President was very sad to have to come out negatively regarding Israel but that they needed to mollify the Arabs for the upcoming war on Iraq. That did not seem to work anyway. Bush seems to love Sharon and Israel, and thinks Arabfat [sic] is nothing but a liar. I thought I'd pass that on."[70][71] This was written before the Downing Street memo, the Bush-Blair memo, and Niger uranium documents forgery were written. This was also before the Office of Special Plans and the White House Iraq Group were created, and before Congress authorised Bush to invade Iraq with the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
Just another tidbit out in land of the internet about lies after 911.
nice tidbit. I love that title "The Office of Special Plans." Is there anything that doesn't cover? Apparently not
Or "Office of Cunning Plans" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACnqI1l4I9s
Traditional liberal economic theory works!! Federal deficit spending spurs investment and creates jobs. Unforturnely the borrowing/deficits in the US spurs investment and job creation in the BRICs not in the US. This benefits the top 10-20% of the population to the detriment of the majority of citizens. The US is like a drug addict who is hooked on deficit spending and Uncle Ben is our dealer who continues to provide the drugs. Short term it feels great and we want more and more; then the destructive side of the addiction will start. Withdrawal and treatment will be very painful and likely lead to war. Some of our BRIC trading partners will likely be our enemies in a future war. There will be no place to hide from the coming problems unless you are in the 5% of wealth where you can own an island/country with a small personal army.
Classical liberalism as economic theory is founded on minimum government, minimum taxation, the protection of private property and sound money. Your talking about the socialism of Keynes and the New Dealers- please be specific. This is the problem of doublespeak and the co-opting of terms.
Wow! Thanks much.
Norman Mattoon Thomas
(November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968)
was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.
The Socialist Party for President of the US, Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, with out knowing what happened.”
He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.
I don't think that was clear enough for him.
If the Ben BerBank can't get the inflation, then go make the war to get the inflation. Will the slaves fight for their freedom? Is this a golden age for insight into the corruption,hypocrisy,and double-talk of our government? How many people knew what Lincoln, or Bush was up to? If people don't believe, your fucked!
One of the most dangerous philosophies we've developed is that of "deficits don't matter". This has allowed for the printing of large amounts of debt and was the beginning of the house of cards we are currently sitting. The shaky foundation for this was built in the 60s and 70s with wars and LBJs "Broke Society" and we've added a layer per year with the current 2-3% per year accepted inflation.
As mentioned, pre federal reserve a gold standard effectively kept this in check.
Limbaugh used to say that deficits didn't matter back in the 80's and 90's but now he is worried about deficits and of course blames it all on Obama when Bush before him spent more than all of the governments in office combined, before him. There is no difference between parties. Deficits do matter and always have. The FED loves deficits. It allows them to control us with debt. So now we dance to their tune and do their bidding. I for one, want that yoke off of my neck and that black boot off of my neck
I for one, want that yoke off of my neck and that black boot off of my neck.
+++
I argue the Fed has broken the contract(mandate) and we no longer owe them a damn thing. Fire them and call it even.
Damn right, we'll come out with a new currency valued on the gold painted lead bricks stored in Fort Knox. If there is this kind of exposure at risk, then our politicians have little choice than to suck it up and kiss the Fed's arse.
George Washinton's posts cause Fallacy of Causal Logic ...
War does not create inflation. Lack of political will to do "pay go" causes inflation ... you even contradict your own premise right here:
The bottom line is that war always causes inflation, at least when it is funded through money-printing instead of a pay-as-you-go system of taxes and/or bonds.
So the title is fallacious ... "lack of political will to pay as we spend" causes inflation ... by your reasoning, everything a politician refuses to fund through taxation (or some other income initiative) causes inflation ... STUNNING REVELATION. I see why you get posting privileges here ... what with that intellectual depth of government budget analysis ...
/Not advocating war ... so don't strawman down that path ...
But he does copy and paste nicely.
Sort of like a second grader's collage.
Interesting to look at---with no real substance.
Interesting to look at---with no real substance.
So you've read my latest review of your mom in the sack ...
Irish,
I was responding to this.
>>>STUNNING REVELATION. I see why you get posting privileges here ... what with that intellectual depth of government budget analysis ... <<<<
Most of GWs posts are a cut and paste jobs. IOW a collage.
Oh and BTW, my mother said the same thing about you.
LOL ... sorry man .. bad target ... like an Iraqi SCUD in Desert Storm ...
did you even read past the title?
Given that I posted a line directly from the actual post ... I'll give you two guesses ...
GW, great post and very well presented. You could have touched on the subject of scarcity and it's effects as well as legal tender laws. Thanks for all the hard work and Happy New Year.
Well of course.
Killing people is not generally held to be a reasonable, sane and productive allocation of scarce resources. Unless the gubamint (Oppps! How'd they get in here again?) decides to ration health care to the elderly, infirmed, crippled, maimed and mentally deficient, and then it's called savings.
Or Eugneics.
"Unless the gubamint (Oppps! How'd they get in here again?) decides to ration health care to the elderly, infirmed, crippled, maimed and mentally deficient, and then it's called savings.
Or Eugneics."
They'll learn...one way or the other.
War - it's fantastic! (sarcasm off)
War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7V6FAoTLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pIqxuygWwM
If you call it a conflict, it generates good comedy sitcoms
The US military must be maintained at all costs to enable the banking cartel to continue its wealth accumulation. Without the backstop of US military power, the bankers would have no defenses against Jihadists and Chicoms. But, as more and more weath is concentrated in the hands of a few, it will only take one itchy finger in N.Korea, Pakistan (and soon Iran) to blow all of the hopes and dreams to hell.
War is insanity. It is mankind at his lowest common denominator. War is evil and people who support war are enabling evil.
This is why the American Empire will collapse. It is never wise to put all your eggs in one basket, and that is what America has done. But it was done with the world"s reserve currency. America has become dependent on the dollar and the oil it furnishes. Once oil production is negative, the dollar and its military will be no more.
Yes the US Millitary is the last backstoßp of the corrupt International oligarchy, without the US support who else would Israel suck dry(they have gone over the French in 1700, the British in 1800 and the Germans in the 1900)
war is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight, or lose money. buy gold, relax and have a drink at the new bar conveniently located just a few steps from wall st.
http://covert2.wordpress.com