"The US Needs War Every 4 Years To Maintain Economic Growth"

Tyler Durden's picture

"This is not a secret," explains Kris Roman, director of geopolitical research center Euro-Rus, "The whole [US] economy is built on the military theme: to maintain its economic growth, the United States needs a war every 4 years, otherwise the economic growth slows down." The Belgian expert believes that with the collapse of the USSR, NATO should have stopped existing, but somehow the alliance "has grown to the size of the Universe because the motto 'The Russians are coming!' is relevant again."

In the 25 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has not forgotten even for a moment about the idea of an attack on Russia, Belgian political scientist and director of geopolitical research center Euro-Rus Kris Roman tells Sputnik News...

"But they had no pretext. Now, due to the chaos in Ukraine, this opportunity appeared and it is actively developed. The older generation, which had been brought up on the propaganda against the Soviet Union, has already accepted the idea of ??an inevitable conflict with Russia," Roman said.

 

...

 

Roman said that when the Belgian defense minister had announced that 1,000 Belgian soldiers would be sent to the Baltic states in the event of a "potential Russian attack."

The United States has repeatedly criticized Europe for small contributions to the NATO budget, saying that the EU tries to save money at the expense of its military budget.

"For America, this is unacceptable, because the whole economy of this country is built on the military theme — to maintain its economic growth, the United States needs a war every 4 years, otherwise the economic growth slows down, it's not a secret. But the United States cannot fight alone, they need puppet-allies, but NATO members, which are suffering a crisis, cannot increase the budget allocations to the military budget, so Europe is under pressure," Kris Roman said.

Russophobia Reminds a Disease

The Belgian expert noted that Russophobia is like a disease as "once infected, you become incurable."

 

The European analyst also commented on the information war aimed against Russia noting that it had been previously used with regard to Iraq and Libya.

 

"It is no longer possible to lie and not be punished. Our media simply prefers to remain silent in order not to be caught lying. What they can say? That the Russians were right? That the Russian army is not there [fighting in Donbass], while the Ukrainian army is at war with its own people? They cannot say such things. The official motto is to blame Russia."

 

"Remember the downed Malaysian Boeing [MH17 that crashed near Donetsk in July 2014]? Our media began screaming that it is Russia's fault when it was still falling. Now there are facts that the Russians did not do it, and, as a result, we no longer hear about the investigation. Silence says that the truth is not on the side of Belgian and European media. If they ever had something [regarding Russia's involvement in the crash], they would have shouted it from morning to evening," he concluded.

*  *  *
As Americans rest and celebrate their independence from the actions of an oppressively taxing monarchy, perhaps it is worth reflecting on the current oligarchy's actions, reactions, and proactions.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
CaptainAmerika's picture
CaptainAmerika (not verified) Jul 4, 2015 8:22 PM

...it is surely time to Pray for an End to Faith http://vimeo.com/philiac/prayforanendtofaith

Citxmech's picture

"to maintain its economic growth, the United States needs a war every 4 years,"

Is this just "war" generally, or a NEW war every 4 years - because we've had more than one going for decades now and I'm still not seeing any growth. . . 

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Happy you are July 4, Amerika!

Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

reduce that 4 year timeframe by 1 year for each 1% rate rise

normalised rates = permawar

BlowsAgainsttheEmpire's picture

Here's one way of looking at it . . . total government military expenditures + veterans benefits as a percentage of GDP.

 

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1oaN

 

 

Anusocracy's picture

The problem with all forms of government is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Usurious's picture
Usurious (not verified) Anusocracy Jul 4, 2015 10:19 PM
"The US Needs War Every 4 Years To Maintain Economic Growth"

wrong.........the debt must grow.........if the american people do not borrow, the GOV will borrow on your behalf............trav7777

 

Antifaschistische's picture

taxing people, to give to the defense complex, so they can blow stuff up does not create real growth.   it just depends on how you measure growth.  You could say the same thing for any government program..

IronForge's picture

This 4 Years' requirement regression-maps well for the Dubya/Obama Timeline; but did the Author address the "Peace Dividend" presided by Clinton? 

IIRC, he raised the Top Tax Rate by a few points; and ended up with a few Budget Surplus Years - which was eventually destroyed by FTAs(Clinton signed the first one) and the "Long War for Empire" Run by Dubya, his Sith Lord, and PNAC Friends.

TeethVillage88s's picture

Well seems to me that it is like the system of mordida/baksheesh where the guy that take the bribe also passed money to his boss a Corrupt Director. Except in the USA gifts are tailored to each government worker or to provide bonus or compensation to Private bankers that transfer to Federal Government Jobs... and must be some kind of Stipend or bonus for a Private banking Executive if he moves to the Federal Reserve... I mean it goes without saying:

We see this in US News.

Some kind of Severance for moving to Government or Federal Reserve Job.

-

"In some Spanish-speaking countries, bribes are referred to as "mordida" (literally, "bite"). In Arab countries, bribes may be called baksheesh (a tip, gift, or gratuity) or "shay" (literally, "tea"). French-speaking countries often use the expressions "dessous-de-table" ("under-the-table" commissions), "pot-de-vin" (literally, "wine-pot"), or "commission occulte" ("secret commission" or "kickback"). While the last two expressions contain inherently a negative connotation, the expression "dessous-de-table" can be often understood as a commonly accepted business practice (for instance, on the occasion of a real estate transaction before the notary, a partial payment made between the buyer and seller; needless to say, this is a good way to launder money). In German, the common term is Schmiergeld ("smoothing money")."

Condition 1SQ's picture

Remind me again how a war is supposed to increase the US tax base?

Chuck Knoblauch's picture

QE spending on the black budget.

This is it's picture

Not enough wars! MOAR WAR!!

Lets see the banks monkey hammer that for size.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

War is racquet!

Major General Smedley Kournokova

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Oops, Boris is confusing of English homonym. Is mean to say,

War is very loud happening

Elliott Eldrich's picture

"War is very loud happening" - Boris Alatovkrap

"War is the health of the state." - Randolph Bourne

"War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Von Clausewitz

"War is peace" - George Orwell

"War, huh, good God y'all. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!" - Edwin Starr

"War is when people take their natural inclination to create new ways to destroy, and combine that with their natural inclination to come up with new ways to fuck over their fellow human beings. This is called progress." - Elliott Eldrich

Do you want an end to war for all time, forever? It's actually very easy to do. Just have a universal military draft, everyone gets a number, and the richer you and/or your family is, the higher your draft number is, so the richest of the rich are drafted into the military first, and they can't hire someone to take their place, they have to personally serve.

Bingo, instant world peace forever. Simple as that. The richest of the rich, who own and control this and all other empires, will never send themselves and their precious offspring off to fight and die for no good reason; that's for the poors.

Fukushima Fricassee's picture
Fukushima Fricassee (not verified) Elliott Eldrich Jul 5, 2015 12:18 AM

Must go with Edwin Starr

post turtle saver's picture

I'd like to know how the US economy is supposed to come to a screaming halt if there isn't a war every 4 years (ha!) when defense expenditure as a percent of US GDP is only 3.5%...

please stop posting raving gibberish from innumerate Belgians who have no fucking concept of economic scale...

Cast Iron Skillet's picture

turtle,you sure you are counting everything? I understand that "defence spending" is counted separately from the "cost of ongoing wars", which is separate from Homeland Security, which is separate from funding the NSA and other spies, which is separate from the amount spend on defense-related research, which is separate feom verteran's benefits and support, ... etc. So you have to add all these things together to get to the amount that is actually flows to military-related expeditures. I didn't do the numbers, but 3.5% for all of that seems a little low to me.

I don't think the claim was that the US economy would to come to a screaming halt, but that he U.S. economy requires war spending for growth, which could well be the case even if defence spending is only 3.5% of U.S. GDP.

And it seems to me that the post was from a numerate Belgian who completely grasps mind-bogglng economic scale, so your insult misses the mark.

post turtle saver's picture

you can roll up all those numbers and then some and, at most, you'll get about 20-30% of _federal spending_... which as a percentage of US GDP that portion comes out to around 3.5% - these are 2014 numbers btw so it's not ancient data...

if I can look this up in about two minutes on line then a supposedly "numerate" Belgian should be able to as well... the fact that he didn't and made such a ridiculous statement tells me that he's being emotional, not rational, and is therefore innumerate in his argument...

many of the "US bad" propaganda puff pieces that get posted on this board are easily refuted with a modicum of research... fine, we get it, Yankee go home, but geez at least try to make a point that can't be shot down in an instant with a few keystrokes...

greenskeeper carl's picture

do we, or do we not, spend orders of magnitude more on our military than the next biggest spnder? do we, or do we not, have over 1000 bases in over 100 countries? Do we, or do we not, regularly kill people in undeclared wars al over the middle east. Have we, or have we not, senselessly invaded and occupied two different countries and toppled several more govts in the past 15 years? Do we, or do we not, spend hundreds of billions more on defense type items that arent part of the DOD "defense" budget just to spy on our own citizens and the citizens of other friendly countries?

 

I don't particularly care what % of GDP is, that kind of thing is just semantics as far as Im concerned. I care about the fact that its way too fucking much, and the above questions far more than the % of US GDP we spend

rwe2late's picture

post turtle saver

Pull your head out of its shell.

Ignoring the linkage s of Wall Street and War Street doesn't make the US less miltaristic.

The US "spends" more on its "warrior" military than the rest of the world combined.

As for the percentage of "GDP", don't just consider federal (state & local) spending.

Don't just count the direct spending on the arming, training, enforcing of the foreign and domestic "wars" on drugs, terror, and whatever.

Don't just add the bonuses, tax breaks, medical care from government.

Don't just add the amount SSI subsidizes PTSD and other vet disabilities?

 

The question is how much of the TOTAL economy is related to military/militarist activity.

How much of private business is dependent or participant in military activity?

From Halliburton to the oil cartel to the financial TBTFs to big AG etc..

How much are global markets, resources, petrodollar dependent on the military?

How much military equipment and services are purchased privately by foreign governments?

How much does the nation pay for the use of lands in domestic military activities of the various "wars". What about paying for the effects and costs of pollution caused by military activities and production?

And even in all this, the "GDP" ignores any "cost" of the "inventory" loss of human and natural resources from military activities (lost both domestic and foreign).

The global military is the world's biggest polluter and is exempted in all environmental treaties.

Chief Wonder Bread's picture

I have come to the conclusion that it's theater for the hyper-elite. When the bullets start flying, they will have found a place to watch and eat their popcorn (so they think).

i_call_you_my_base's picture

I remember thinking that at the time the Ukraine saga started that in the prior six months congress was talking about reducing military spending and relations with Russia appeared good.

q99x2's picture

I don't believe it. When there is no money its over.

daveO's picture

That's why Roberts said that the O'care penalty was a tax. They will keep inventing 'penalties' until they can't grab anymore cash. The insurance co's are raising rates(25+%), so I expect the crooks in CONgress will use that as cover to raise the penalty after BHO is replaced(maybe before). Meanwhile, they promise to abolish it altogether if their guy goes in. Yea, sure. They need that money to pay their bills. 

who cares's picture

Unfortunately more wars means more dollars and debt. That's why today the west is in recession: the debt is too high and military spending is detracting from expenditures that have a higher impact on growth. It is time that governements come to the conclusion that it is better to look for peace and disarmament than for new conflicts and wars.  

Jack Burton's picture

The USA maintains a war economy. Our spending is on a level that any nation engaged in a major national level war would have. It is a proven fact teh USA spends more on military, nuclear and intelligence than basically the entire developed world combined. Yet, to hear congress and the media talk, we have dissarmed and made ourselves vulnerable to a rampaging Russian army. This is the level of lunatic media reporting. The opposite is true, NATO has advanced right up to Russian borders, and NATo proxies have attacked Russian enclaves, like South Ossetia and Donbass.

The US economy no longer can support this level of military spending. It is for this reason 1/2 of the trillion dollar a year military spending must be borrowed. Money is printed and we buy our own debt in order to fund the military.

Jobs, millions of Americans work because they service the military. Millions work in the military. Millions work on cntracts for the military. It is true, without military spending, a wave of unemployment would sweep 20 million people away.

War is our way of life. Nobody can attack us. So we must go abroad and atack them, in order to have the wars we need.

Americans believe the world has a duty to obey Washington. If they refuse, we have a duty to attack and destroy them. That mentality is where we are at right now. Ukraine was created by a US coup, now we use it as the reason to go to war with Russia.

 

Nexus789's picture

The US may spend a lot but much of what is spent is non-fighting stuff. Supporting the infrastructure in terms of the bloated administration, costly bases, poor procurement practices and boondoggle projects. Whole blocks of assets – jets, ships, etc, are all aging at the same time. The current fighter jets (although upgraded) first flew in the early 80’s. A lot of ship hulls are nearly thirty years old and it is planned to keep some at sea for 50 years. The Aegis system is over three decades old. 

r3phl0x's picture

We don't attack them - we make them safe for democracy and freedoms!

post turtle saver's picture

"Our spending is on a level that any nation engaged in a major national level war would have."

bull fucking shit... the rest of the world would shit their fucking drawers if the US ever decided to truly open the spigot to fund full on overt warfare... again, the US only spends 3.5% of its GDP on defense expenditures, yet that appears to be more than enough to get everyone's panties in a goddamned twist...

"The US economy no longer can support this level of military spending."

oh, please... give it a rest... what the US can't afford is fucking cradle-to-grave welfare, which the Euro and the rest of the world has attempted to fund on the back of the US' NATO military funding... I can guarantee you if Europe had to truly take on and spend for its own defense the socialist utopia experiments would stop real fucking quick...

how many times does it have to be said... it's "guns or butter", not "guns and butter"... you can't have both and, even if you could, only one could keep the other from being taken away from you and it sure as fuck isn't "butter"...

 

Cast Iron Skillet's picture

The argument about whether too much is being spent on welfare or on warfare is a red herring designed to distract people from the truth.

The U.S. is spending way too much on BOTH welfare AND warfare. We are spending more than we can afford and driving our country more deeply into debt with each passing day.

We need to roll back defense spending to the minimum level required to defend our borders rather than that required to attempt to achieve global domination. We need to roll back welfare spending to the level required to care for the truly disabled among us, rather than that required to cure all aches.

post turtle saver's picture

no, no it is not... the assertion being made is that the US needs a war every 4 years to maintain economic growth... by inspection this is easily refuted, as the expenditures required to maintain such a level of war footing vs. the overall size of the US economy demonstrates that US defense spending is _not_ the primary driver for economic growth in the US... what our Belgian friend has asserted is wrong and easily demonstrated as such with very simple research...

"millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute"... as for what minimum level is required to achieve that, I'd submit there isn't a single person posting in this thread that holds the level of expertise necessary to determine what that number is... if the choice is less vs. more, I say give me more... I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it...

petkovplamen's picture

very telling how you somehow fail to mention corporate welfare which has taken trillions out of the economy but rave against non existent cradle-to-grave welfare.

Where do you get 3.5% from, pray tell us? As if ANYTHING the government tells us is true. Been to the supermarket lately, seen the price of food? And how much did the gov say inflation was, remind us? 3.5% my eye.

Oh, and you forgot to mention the "Liberals" so your trolling won't count and you won't be getting paid, sorry. Make sure you do much better next time.

Salah's picture

Jack, you don't know Jack-shit.

TeethVillage88s's picture

Salah;

Start looking at the:

30 September 2014, Final Monthly Treasury Statement, Outlays and Revenues, Table 5.

Well for each year you can see what is spent and how the spending is Exponential.

Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 2014 = $3.5 Trillion (B. Obama)
Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 2012 = $3.54 Trillion (B. Obama)
Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 2010 = $3.45 Trillion (B. Obama)
Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 2008 = $2.98 Trillion (G.W. Bush)
Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 2006 = $2.65 Trillion (G.W. Bush)
Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 2004 = $2.29 Trillion (G.W. Bush)
Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 2002 = $2.01 Trillion (B. Clinton)
Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 2000 = $1.79 Trillion (B. Clinton)
Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 1998 = $1.65 Trillion (B. Clinton)
Total-Federal Government Actual Budget 1997 = $1.6 Trillion (B. Clinton)

$Trillion Debt Added

J. Carter, ,$0.37 T (4 yrs)
R. Reagan, $1.69 T
G. H Bush, $1.4 T (4 yrs)
W. Clinton, $1.627 T
G. W. Bush, $4.357 T
B. Obama, $6.365 T (4 yrs)
B. Obama, $8 T (6 yrs est.)

J. Carter was doing good, Brah. Pull your ideological head out of your ass.

headhunt's picture

The explosion in debt is supporting the government unions and pensions, the exploding welfare state and the exploding illegal alien state.

Look at those actual numbers and you will find the military expense is dwarfed by the welfare (citizen and non-citizen), government, union state.

The leftist media is in fact brainwashing you - military bad, leftist policy good.

dreadnaught's picture

and yet, he STILL knows tons more than you, insect!

HowdyDoody's picture

"Nobody can attack us"

Nobody want to attack us (excluding false flag attacks by the enemy within). Why bother when the US is doing such a good job of destroying itself?

 

At120's picture

Makes sense. The only thing the US exports, outside of food, is weapons. We've long since outsourced all our other manufacturing to the far East.

rejected's picture

"As Americans rest and celebrate their independence from the actions of an oppressively taxing monarchy,"

Only to end up enslaved by an oppressive taxing fascist Cleptocracy.

ajkreider's picture

News source is Euro Rus interview with Sputnik news? Oh my how ZH has fallen. I'll just go to RT to avoid the middle man.

Cannon Fodder's picture

Wasn't that the premise to the book, "The Report from Iron Mountain"?

Super Hans's picture

The U.S. entry into WWII is the only reason the U.S. exited their economic depression, that is a fact.

 

SH