Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by SpacePete, Jun 15, 2014.
More from the same artice:
The War and Gold book sounds interesting:
Let's invade NZ, Fiji, and the rest of the islands!
Think of the size of the Wallaby front row.
Just the thought of losing to those New Zealanders might be enough to pass the budget, restore funding to science and unite the people behind our glorious new leader... as the article states: "...the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation's longer-run prospects."
So stop blaming Labour and start blaming New Zealand. Problem solved!
The author of one of the books mentioned in the article has a talk on youtube on the topic:
Beating up New Zealand would be like beating up a re-tard. It would do nothing for Australia's global reputation and just make us look like tryhards.
More than joining the Coalition of the Willing you mean?
That's why we would firstly send out false media reports of their government committing tyrannic acts upon their people. Upon which there would be a war to save the people and put Aussie friendly leaders in charge to ensure that the profits of Aussie corporations are secured and increased.
Ha ha, I have dual ANZ citizenship, I'll have to give myself an uppercut!
Trouble is, if we go to war against NZ we may end up being called 'West Island'.
Fierce buggers them Kiwis!
Anyway, I thought DEBT was the problem, not war or lack of it?
stupid pollies spend too much effing money!
Spot on OC. In one of the quoted paragraphs above, there is a similar concern by the guy authored Gold and Money: "...the need to finance wars led governments to help develop monetary and financial institutions, enabling the rise of the West. He does worry, however, that today many governments are abusing these institutions and using them to take on too much debt."
Getting back to the original post.
1. Approximately half of humans time on earth has been at war with each other.
2. War kills economies as well as people. Economic growth comes from supplying the tools of war and the supplies and rebuilding materials to the poor people who've just been warring.
3. NY Times 'toilet paper of record' - why is it putting false propaganda like this out for its readership?
Did you read some of the closing paragraphs?
I think suggesting that the slowed down economies of the world are preferable to a greater war machined growth, is a sly way of suggesting to the moronic other half, that a good war or two will bring back economic prosperity to a depression world.
it is the lack of blood sacrifice and blood on the streets, is the way to say lack of majors wars to boost the war machine.
Its the old "broken windows" fallacy. If 1 broken window caused by a kid throwing a stone can create economic activity, then logically 2 broken windows would be twice as good. And by extension, lets break all the shop windows... then burn down the shop itself... then demolish the whole city...
That's what war does... redirect valuable capital away from building something new to rebuilding things we already have.
I'd like to point out war is a human condition. It has always been with us and will always be with us. From the first disagreement before fire was invented to the exploration of the galaxy. War will be with us.
That 1000 years of peace is a bit elusive then!
Unfortunately you're probably right.
Separate names with a comma.