|
07-15-2006, 08:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
uhm, America lost miniscule ammounts of people compared to the European Countries. Might i remind you we didn't enter the war until 1 year before it ended (WW1).
The great depression also wasn't mainly American. In fact, we weren't even the hardest hit. Canada and Europe were hit much harder then us. Canada didn't recover until 1939, and Spain, it didn't recover until 1953 because of their extreme isolation. Germany almost went completely bankrupt, as in their money would be of no worth at all. In fact, the Great Despression is why Hitler was elected so if you want to play that game it's our fault (who do you think got Germany rolling again? the USA!). World War 2 ended the depression, yes, but not because of those reasons. since 12 million people were in the army, we needed more workers! Businesses hired everyone in sight. Unemployment was higher though in 1942 then in FDR's first term. just a history lesson for y'all. our troops are all in Iraq, right next to Iran. It's like it all fell into place. Last edited by Ramsfan; 07-15-2006 at 08:44 PM. 
|
|
07-15-2006, 08:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wars are not good for economies.
Quote:
The parable goes: A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sun. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor. Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace the window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer. The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye." From the Broken Window Fallacy it is quite easy to see why the war will not benefit the economy. The extra money spent on the war is money that will not be spent elsewhere. The war can be funded in a combination of three ways: 1. Increasing taxes 2. Decrease spending in other areas 3. Increasing the debt Increasing taxes reduces consumer spending, which does not help the economy improve at all. Suppose we decrease government spending on social programs. Firstly we've lost the benefits those social programs provide. The recipients of those programs will now have less money to spend on other items, so the economy will decline as a whole. Increasing the debt means that we'll either have to decrease spending or increase taxes in the future; it's a way to delay the inevitable. Plus there's all those interest payments in the meantime. If you're not convinced yet, imagine that instead of dropping bombs on Baghdad, the army was dropping refrigerators in the ocean. The army could get the refrigerators in one of two ways: 1. They could get every American to give them $50 to pay for the fridges. 2. The army could come to your house and take your fridge. Does anyone seriously believe there would be an economic benefit to the first choice? You now have $50 less to spend on other goods and the price of fridges will likely increase due to the added demand. So you'd lose twice if you were planning on buying a new fridge. Sure the appliance manufacturers love it, and the army might have fun filling the Atlantic with Fridgidaires, but this would not outweigh the harm done to every American who is out $50 and all the stores that will experience a decline in sales due to the decline in consumer disposable income. As far as the second one, do you think you'd feel wealthier if the army came and took your appliances away from you? The idea of the government coming in and taking your things may seem ridiculous, but it's not any different than increasing your taxes. At least under this plan you get to use the stuff for awhile, whereas with the extra taxes, you have to pay them before you have an opportunity to spend the money. For the comments on the end of the depression I would refer you Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression". http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
__________________
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
07-15-2006, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
well then Lebanon should kick hezbollah out of their country like they were supposed to when isreal withdrew from Lebanon. the resolution passed by the UN (in 2000 i believe) called for Isreal to withdrawl from Lebanon (which they did) and Lebanon was supposed to rid the southern border of hezbollah TERRORISTS. 6 years later the TERRORISTS are still in southern Lebanon constantly lobbing missles into isreal and the Lebanese government does nothing to stop it. maybe you should throw some blame on Lebanon for allowing a terrorist organization to operate within its border. as far as i'm concerned they deserve what isreal gives to them. another history lesson for y'all.
|
|
07-15-2006, 09:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
USA was not hit hard at all. It lost little in WW1 while germany and england lost a lot. They were the one hit hardest. Like i said war can bring your economy to your knees and you may or may not be able to attend a crisis such as the 1929 stock crash. Last edited by hmmm; 07-15-2006 at 09:24 PM.
|
|
07-15-2006, 09:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Lebanon have got enough troubles of their own, they cant exactly stop everything and move in all their troops to kick them out. Its not that simple. Even if they tried, it could start a civil war within that country (again). Saying that the lebanese civilians need to be constantly bombed because they deserve it is bull****.. bridges airports streets. Israel lost 2-3 kidnapped soldiers, they'll lose a lot more by going to war, and lebanon will lost 10x that amount and a lot will be innocent people. Hardly makes fuking sense.
|
|
07-15-2006, 09:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
they havent even tried to kick them out. they let them have free reign. they havent asked for help from UN nothing. they didnt live up to their part of the agreement. but of course liberals like you wont blame the terrorists. always isreal and usa's fault. so in your eyes isreal shouldnt do nothing about their soldiers being kidnapped. just throw their hands up and do nothing. who would want to fight for a government that does nothing when their soldiers are kidnapped. and dont give me they should negotiate with the terrorists to get their soldiers back. you cant reason with a terrorist. what doesnt make fuking sense is the weak, appeasment mindset that so many people have. appeasment and compitulation has been tried in the past. where did it get us? 9/11? I hope Isreal doesnt relent until hezbaloh is destroyed
|
|
07-15-2006, 10:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You mean you dislike the Neville Chamberlains? Yep, peace at any cost, esp if others have to pay it. Lobbing rockets into another country is an act of war, I don't care they don't like the fact Israel has choosen to respond. I think with all these "smart bombs" and targetting limited targets has made war fun for politicians. Time to obliterate a country and maybe some of the idiots will get the message that negotiators jobs are to negotiate (gasp) and not to just inform everyone they will fight no matter what and won't stop their (errant) behavior. Wait till it happens a country tries to surrender, and the victor refuses to accept. They said they wanted to fight to the last man, woman, and child, and well we are holding them to it! The sad truth is innocents are dying, and the useless Lebenese government knows what to ask for, but won't ask the UN, their own army, or Israel to do it. KILL ALL THE TERRORIST And you are incorrect sir (the ones thinking Iraq's pathetic rebels are remotely winning), after 3 years of war in Iraq there is an awful lot of ****ing dead terrorists. They have been severely weakened. They won't ever hardly attack the US army (it's suicide), and soon Iraq will use it's own army to rightfully kill the rest and their associates.
__________________
Jan 01 2006-22%bf 190lbs 148lbm May 28 2006-13%bf 183bs 159lbm TIME TO GAIN WEIGHT!!!! Last edited by krenalor; 07-15-2006 at 10:49 PM.
|
|
07-16-2006, 05:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
07-16-2006, 05:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I didnt say they shouldnt do anything, but im sure they could of come up of a better way of getting their soldiers back rather then a full scale military attack. Terrorism will never be defeated by war. The more you kill the more recruits they get. In the end one side pulls out and guess what these so called terroists have nothing to lose, they will never pull out. "And you are incorrect sir (the ones thinking Iraq's pathetic rebels are remotely winning), after 3 years of war in Iraq there is an awful lot of ****ing dead terrorists. They have been severely weakened. They won't ever hardly attack the US army (it's suicide), and soon Iraq will use it's own army to rightfully kill the rest and their associates." You think that the US is making progress in iraq? I hardly think so, i hear freqently on the news of US soldiers being killed. Only today did i hear 7 british soldiers killed in afghanistan. In the end everyone will see how pointless this **** is, for those 3 soldiers that were kidnapped and probably killed thousands of israelis will die. Its like spending $20 000 to repair a $5000 car. Im not saying that terrorism should not be delt with, it just has to be delt with in a smarter way. This is how much has been spent on the war on terrorism $296,490,916,146 this figure increases by $2,000 every second. Not to mention all the lives that have been lost.
|
|
07-16-2006, 05:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
07-16-2006, 07:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
UN Resolution 1559 called for the withdrawl of isreal from lebanon. Isreal complied with this. In exchange for this withdrawl lebanon agreed to disband hezballoh and place its own troops on the southern border creating a "buffer zone" between lebanon and isreal. Lebanon has done neither in the 6 years since the resolution. just goes to show much you cant negotiate with terrorists, no matter how much the left insists you can
|
|
07-16-2006, 08:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
one more thing. i just heard on the news that isreal has warned civilians to leave southern lebanon because a military attack is imminet. Did the terrorists warn civilians to get out of the WTC and Pentagon before their attacks on 9/11? What about the attacks on the USS Cole? How about the bombings in London? Did they warn the people of Spain when Madrid was bombed? What about the embassies in Kenzinia (sp?) , khobar towers? how about the 1983 bombing of a US military base in beirut? WTC 1993? i could go on and on but i trust you get the point.
|
|
07-16-2006, 08:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It would be nice if a whole lot less Lebenese were dying and instead the responsible parties Iran/Syria/their cronies died instead.
They really couldn't kick Hezbollah out alone and the morons at the UN should have recognized it early and had provisions in the order to aid the Lebenese government. Passing a resolution and implimenting it are two different things and the ambassadors (again) failed to force the issue for 6 years and now look what has happened. Those fools saying "there has been no progress in Iraq" are a whole different matter. What if our biased media spent the whole day for a week straight reporting every major crime in America? It would seem as if we had complete lawlessness! Some parts of America are less safe then Iraq!
__________________
Jan 01 2006-22%bf 190lbs 148lbm May 28 2006-13%bf 183bs 159lbm TIME TO GAIN WEIGHT!!!!
|
|
07-16-2006, 08:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
07-16-2006, 09:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i completely agree with you that those 3 things are not good for the economy. but who said you have to do one of those 3 things to pay for a war? lets look at the war in Iraq as an example? bush didnt 1) increase taxes 2)decrease spending on social programs (although i wish he would), 3) Increase the debt. On the contrary he CUT TAXES. and look what happened. the economy is humming along. cutting taxes increased consumer spending which in turn created great revenue for the government which helped pay for the war. the economy is as strong as it was in the 90s right now. unemployment is 4.6% (lower than any point in the 90s when the economy was also great). the deficet is half of what it was in 2003 when the war in iraq started. i am not saying the war in iraq is what has caused the economy to be so good now but it was actually the tax cuts which are funding the war.
|
|
07-16-2006, 12:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Trample the weak.....hurdle the dead
|
|
07-16-2006, 04:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
yeah all Syria and Iran need is one small misstep from Israel and they'll be on them like a fat kid eating cake.
Does anyone wonder what Iraq's view is on this? I mean, they do have their own Psuedo-Government and all, and they are mostly muslim, like Iran and Syria. Plus they have terrorists. It would be funny to have a country occupied by the US have a different stand then the US. But can we keep this a non-partisian dicussion? I mean, all the liberal conservative crap is REALLY annoying. I don't care if your Red or Blue, just discuss ok?!
|
|
07-16-2006, 06:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Negotiate. Not with money and weapons though, I doubt that this would work unless they do have something to lose. If they fails, small SF operations. A lot less killing but very effective. Just look at SAS taking out scuds in desert storm.
|
