Nobel Prize-Winning Economist: “War Is Widely Thought To Be Linked To Economic Good Times … NONSENSE”

George Washington's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AnAnonymous's picture

Made me laugh. Funny as funny. The US citizens nature is eternal. Long string on US citizens providing rationalization for their own acts  down the road after I stated they would etc... So funny... Cant help themselves, they are like an incontinent.

malek's picture

Ahem... while Krugman is comparing apples to oranges, Stiglitz is comparing pumpkins (increased in size by easy credit) to oranges.

Inspector Bird's picture

BTW, Krugman is happy that the hypocrisy of some politicians somehow "proves" his point.  It doesn't.  Just because Republicans say that government spending doesn't create jobs, but cutting military spending is bad because it creates jobs, doesn't mean Keynesianism is correct.  It means the Republicans are morons.  By default, it makes Krugman a moron.  Which I suppose he's happy to lay claim to.

Inspector Bird's picture

Wait....Ayn Rand was correct to stipulate war is a statist-driven vehicle, that a good capitalist would oppose war?

The fact Krugman keeps believing it's a good thing (that WWII dragged us out of the Depression - HAH) is based on the misperception that the 'goodness' of war is a relative thing.  If the Germans were destroyed, the effort placed by industry in the US to achieve this is what helped us grow.  Well, why wasn't that true in Britain or the USSR?  Sure, both were pretty banged up, but both also were relatively better off than most other nations, such as France, Italy, Belgium, Japan, etc. 

The issue is that OVERALL growth suffered during WWII.   GDP is only one part of measurement of growth and while military industries do add to GDP, they also represent misallocated resources (Bastiat).  So it's fictitious growth.  Growth isn't just what you see, it's what you don't see.  What you don't see with war is what you COULD HAVE SPENT THE MONEY ON.

Few people understand this.

War, and by default military spending that exceeds current and perceived future needs, is a waste of resources.  Not to mention talent.  How many potential entrepreneurs and visionaries were lost in WWII?  What's amazing is that we tend to come out of war and still have enough energy and ability to keep moving forward.  I'd have to say the one, and only, "value" of war is improving the perceptions of what is important.  But even that is quickly lost.  WWII veterans recognized the value of what they achieved.  Their children, to some small degree, and their grandchildren to a much larger degree, scoff at their achievements.

AnAnonymous's picture

Wait....Ayn Rand was correct to stipulate war is a statist-driven vehicle, that a good capitalist would oppose war?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

She was blatantly wrong. Good, bad capitalists? On what ground?

Capitalists look for the optimal return on investment under the form of profits (optimal return could take other forms)

Extorters of the weak issue a demand for violence, to keep the extorted in line. Same with farmers of the poor.

Why should not a good capitalist try to meet this demand with an offer?

And keeping standing armies on the defense is not the best path to profits.
Agressive use of armies is the best path. State or not.

War is an extortion scheme.

Rand was your typical US citizen who demand the dissolution of the state, not because the State is bad but because they want the West to keep dominating the world scene. They observed some time ago that while the success of the west was state based, the State has also reached its peak in efficiency and was closing the point of negative returns.

Which is certainly not true for other places in the world that are lagging in their relation to the State and are still in positive return stage.

US citizens have robbed their way to the top. Theft was glorious. Now they own everything, they can no longer rob, nobody is left to rob from save themselves. And it means that they are the targets for potential robbers who will gain a lot by robbing them.

That is why all these US citizen intellectuals had taken such stances.

US citizen intellectualism.

Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

I guess i will call krugger,Krugman if I have too.

hivekiller's picture

War is the health of the state. The state is not 'the government'. It's the elite that owns the state. War is the quickest way to alter a nation's way of life and to set up a permanent dictatorship. Thus the endless 'war on terror'.

Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

Krugger and many "other" influential people are also HEAVILY invested in the military industrial complex.

Fuck off Krugger.

Ps...somehow the words "economist"and "nobel" seem to be very misleading.

Insiderman's picture

In addition to the economic arguments made in the article, we can't eat, wear, live in or otherwise enjoy the bombs, tanks, planes, etc. that become part of GDP as the result of military spending.  We should always avoid the conclusion that war benefits us in any way other than as a pure defense measure.

XenOrbitalEnginE's picture

Oiii

At last, somethins XOE reads makes him bullish on Aerospace-Defence!  RTN, LMT, BA, GD (or "God", as it's not known.)   None of these small-arms Smith and Willikins.

GCT's picture

War is nothing more then another tool in your crooked politicians chest of tools to use.  War is not working because the politicians cannot kill people of the world on a grand scale like they used to do all in the name of saving their countries or preserving peace for the world.  Population and resource control is all that modern warfare is all about.

Grand Supercycle's picture

DOW chart showing bearish megaphone pattern warned of downtrend resumption:

http://stockmarket618.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2011-10-31_dow_dy_x.png

As mentioned for some time, bullish USD weekly chart continues to exert it’s influence and according to my analysis this will continue.

Willzyx's picture

The benefit of war are relative.  War is good for a nations economy, only if you blow up everyone else's economies, relative to your own.

snowball777's picture

Each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations.

 

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

 

Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

 

War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.

 

Alvaro de Esteban's picture

Oh my.., GW, again the Nobel Prize winning economists...

And not the latest ones who make some sense sometimes, no...our beloved pro Obama, pro establishment, IMF & WB leftists Krugman & Stiglitz.

 

proLiberty's picture

War is the ultimate in 'broken windows".  It is made worse when government accountants count bombs, bullets and tanks in the GDP, as if making a million dollars worth of new cars has the same economic benefit as making a million dollar armored vehicle.  War also brings enslavement of young men, and the destruction of a certain percent of them, from which nobody will ever benefit from their work and innovation. 

chunga's picture

 

Not everyone profits from war. I posted this earlier so this will be the last time.

This was read at a funeral I went to Saturday by a fellow Serviceman at the deceased's request. Three uniformed soldiers folding our flag. Taps. Not a dry eye in the Church.

“A Soldier, His Prayer”

Stay with me God. The night is dark.

the night is cold; my little spark

of Courage dies. The night is long;

Be with me God and make me strong.

 

I love a game; I love a fight.

I hate the dark; I love the light.

I love my child; I love my wife.

I am no coward. I love life.

 

Life with its changes of mood and shade

I want to live. I am not afraid

But me and mine are hard to part.

Oh! Unknown God, lift up my heart.

 

You stilled the waters at Dunkirk

And saved your servants. All your work

Is wonderful, Dear God. You strode

Before us down that dreadful road.


We were alone and hope had fled.

We love our country and our dead

And we could not shame them;so we stayed

The course, and were not afraid.


Dear God; that nightmare road, then

That sea; we got there-we were men

My eyes were blind, my feet were torn,

My soul sang like a bird at dawn.


I know that death is but a door.

I know what we are fighting for.

Peace for our kids our brothers freed,

A kinder world, a loving creed.


I but the son my Mother bore.

A simple man and nothing more.

But-God of strength and gentleness

Be pleased and nothing less.


Help me God, when death is near

To mock the haggard face of fear.

That when I fall, if fall I must,

My soul may triumph in the dust.

 

 

 

 

Chaplain Oran Zaebst

1940

102nd Cavalry Regiment

“Essex Troup”

I was so moved, I requested a copy from the Gentleman. It's available for (free) download on scribd with handwritten notes below.

"A Soldier, His Prayer"

 

Any more LEOS who may be deciding to shoot a Veteran with any kind of bullet should read this. Though it would probably mean more to our Country's Veterans past and present.

If you know a Veteran consider passing it on. Many of them fought battles with no opportunity or desire to profit.

 

the tower's picture

War is extremely profitable for the biggest industry on earth: the weapons industry.

We have wars because Big Money is deeply invested in the weapons industry.

Only if we kill everyone making money of weapons we'll have peace. It's totally OK, cause that's the business they are in, the business of killing, therefore being killed is part of the package.

So, if you know someone in the weapons industry, you know what you have to do.

El Viejo's picture

Absolutely correct and if you want documentation and verification from Dwight Eisenhower beg borrow or steal the video:  "Why We Fight"

rwe2late's picture

Two additional points:

(a) Warfare and militarism promote government secrecy and arbitrary power in the name of “national security”. The war profiteering (legal or not) results from and feeds into more secrecy, concentrated power, and bought politicians. In short, arguably the biggest cost and loss is to liberty, both individual and public. And NOT just in the United States, but globally, military power is used to prop up many despotic governments, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, from Haiti to Colombia.

(b) The global Pentagon is the world’s worst single polluter and destroyer of the environment, both by manufacturing by-products and use. The military is the single biggest consumer of petroleum. The military promotes the production and uses all sorts of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. From agent orange to cluster bombs, from depleted uranium to direct bombardment, the military does it all.

Nonetheless:

We will likely continue to spend double the percentage GDP that others spend on similar healthcare in order to subsidize the insurance and health industries. We’ll allocate trillions more to keep financial speculators afloat. We’ll spend trillions more to kill illiterate peasants half-way around the world, prop up drug mobsters, and enrich warfare merchants. We’ll build more prisons, fewer schools. We’ll pay for more NSA, TSA, and Homeland policing of ourselves. We’ll do with less, so the wealthiest can have more.

CPL's picture

...because of the US foreign policies which forgot that eventually the people crapped on will eventually come looking for you.

 

US government unfortunately shit so deeply into it's own sandbox, it now has a country that barely tolerates the actions of it's "leadership" and countries that it fucked with.  All that people are starting to understand is they have been screwed globally.

 

This tax year should be interesting, I'm personally not planning on filing a damn thing and I know a few hundred others that are planning the same thing.  If they were worried about funding wars, pensions and bailouts before, wait until no one plays along with the horseshit offered.

apberusdisvet's picture

 

The propaganda to lead the sheeple to WWIII is now gaining steam.  The false flags are flying everywhere.  Must distract from the continuing theft from the middle class and the growing fascist takeover.

CPL's picture

What middle class?

 

And the take over already happened years ago.

 

Best.  Coup.  Ever.

shortus cynicus's picture

Current wars are good for perpetuating bad fiat money insanity. That is what Krugman want to say.

The main reason for current long and intentionally very expensive wars is just pumping new fresh printed money into economy: war is a big money laundry operation.

Ben Helicopter wanted to make a drop, but how? Giving cash to banksters accomplish nothing. Giving to average Americans in an envelope would be like loosing a face for fiat regime. So what about giving cash (without repay obligations) directly to military contractors? They can be exempted form accounting by White House, so there is easy way to hide it. FED isn't accountable for anything anyway.

Second "good point" for fiat regime is distraction from fiat money collapse. Just remember, that WWII started preemptive two years earlier because of inflation fears mounted by bursting MEFO Wechsel bubble.

Coldfire's picture

As breaking windows makes work for glassmakers, destroying entire countries made work for the United States government. But guns and butter ultimately made Uncle Scam broke. And for that we should be thankful.

taxpayer102's picture

@Coldfire

Krugman is a frontman for the Fed and internationl bankers that *loan* money to the U.S. government to wage war.  Wars make bankers rich.

Farrakhan lays it out in his 1995 "Conspiracy of the International Bankers" lecture so every American can understand it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUXRSthM_hE

AnAnonymous's picture

If wars really helped the economy, don’t you think things would have improved by now?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

No.

US citizens are propagandists. They are also expansionists. So expect the US propagandists to enable each other's propaganda in order to strengthen it.

Expansion is nothing new. People claiming that it is something new are propagandists.

Expansion stages are well known.

At first, it adds inputs to the economy. So it helps the economy of the expansionist side. Undubiously. Growth based on physical expansion.

Later, another stage: expansion is coming to a halt. At the point, no more inputs are added to the economy. War efforts are now mostly security efforts to prevent withdrawal of inputs. Wars no longer enable no supply lines, they are made to prevent supply lines from being shut down.

It changes totally the perspective: from times one could expect always more, one is now plunged into times where one has to expect always less.

US citizens from USA can not even admit that they stole their way up to the top, that stealing an entire continent from Indians had been key to their rise. They've invented all kinds of rationalization to try to deny most obvious facts.

Krugman, Stilglitz and co are all US citizens. Opposition, divergent thinking do not exist in US type of society because US citizens hate on diversity and have been successful into establishing uniformity and conformity.

Krugman, Stilglitz and co will work in the same direction, trying to cover most obvious facts by cheap and shallow propaganda, US style. Their speech has no value.

This what you expect from US citizens. And this is what you get from US citizens.

spanish inquisition's picture

Our country is based on conquest. We are Sparta. It is interesting that with 700 bases around the world that citizens don't think there is a problem. I have wondered in the past when did Germans know they were living in Nazi Germany. I now have an answer, they never did and still don't today, just like the US of A.

War does have a benefit. It creates debt that needs to be borrowed and puts bankers in charge. And I have been thinking that the history books are wrong and the 20th century has been about wars for central bank consolidation. Take a look at who we fought and see that most were a variety of independent banks that became private central banks after the war. Take a look at the axis of evil and who owns their banks..... the US is sending advisors to Uganda with a......100% Government owned central bank...

 

pvzh's picture

"when did Germans know they were living in Nazi Germany"

That is easy. They new it after allies "explained" it to them (some time after 1945).

TruthHunter's picture

Actually they took over a largely depopulated continent. If the Indians hadn't been decimated by disease, they

would've quickly adopted western technology and prevented all but a toe hold in the Americas.

 

Empires rise and fall. There always comes a time to pay the piper.

We are left with the myth of the Noble savage. Perhaps he was ennobled by

hardship.

The fact is oppression, squalor, and cruelty were also rampant.  Our enemies are fond of pinning a criminal label on

the white man when  he was just the agent of history.

 

hivekiller's picture

I'm glad you said adopted western technology because the Injuns weren't intellectually capable of inventing any technology. They were essentially primitive nomadic tribes who for the most part who were constantly waging war on each other. There was plenty of room for everyone but they took to killing the settlers, stealing their animals, and torturing and raping prisoners. In other words, they waged war on whites in the same way they waged war on other tribes. Only whites were superior in terms of technology and military strategy and the injuns lost.

 

Diogenes's picture

"Actually they took over a largely depopulated continent. If the Indians hadn't been decimated by disease, they

would've quickly adopted western technology and prevented all but a toe hold in the Americas."

 

It is only fair to point out that Europeans were not immune to American disease either. Look at the record of the earliest attempts at colonization in the 16th and 17th century. You will see a mortality rate among the settlers of 50% to 90% the first year. Some were wiped out entirely within 2 years.

 

"Empires rise and fall. There always comes a time to pay the piper.

We are left with the myth of the Noble savage. Perhaps he was ennobled by

hardship.

The fact is oppression, squalor, and cruelty were also rampant.  Our enemies are fond of pinning a criminal label on

the white man when  he was just the agent of history."

 

"oppression, squalor, and cruelty were also rampant" in Europe as well as the Americas, in fact all over the world at that time.

 

Chuck Walla's picture

Modern civilizations, cultures, always displace the obsolete cultures. Who cries for the Aztec, the Goth, the Druid or the Tuscan? 

Are you kidding's picture

Yes...we stole an entire continent from cave men...besides, they weren't using it effectively.

As for the war question...you need the right KIND of war.  A constant war, where you spend but don't get anything in return, IS a losing proposition.  You need a WORLD WAR so you can (a. extinguish any debt you already owe them. and (b. Take anything of value they posses.

mjk0259's picture

We don't have that many citizens, mostly illegal aliens now.