I just had a very frightening thought

[UndertheOcean]

After the economic collapse happens and deepens , History tells us us that the rebound may not happen until we switch to a war economy.


Are we almost at the doorsteps of major bloodshed.

[Solly Mack]

1. So..uh...all the current bloodshed not major enough for you?

[UndertheOcean]

3. I mean bloodshed on the scale of WWII , only

with more deadly toys

[BattyDem]

2. We already have a war economy

It hasn't helped.

[Warpy]

4. That part of history is dead wrong

Yes, WWII accelerated the recovery process, but that process was well under way by the late 30s due to the programs of the New Deal and would likely have continued.

After all, look at us since WWII. We've pretty much been kept on a war footing since then, slightly over half our revenues being poured into that five sided welfare office for fat cat war contractors in Washington, and the economy has progressively worsened for most of us since liberals went out of power in 1969.

I argue that the reason we're facing collapse now is that the New Deal was abandoned, wages weren't indexed to inflation, and families were forced into all this debt because of falling purchasing power. People are now at their limit regarding monthly debt service and many who are stressed by rising prices are defaulting on all of it.

After all, would mortgages be defaulting if people could pay them? Would other credit obligations be in jeopardy if people weren't bankrupted by low wages and high health costs?

It's not war, it's wages that support an economy. The historians are dead wrong when they tell us it's war. If it were true, we'd all be rich after 60 years of Cold War, Vietnam War, War on Drugs, War on Terra, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars of occupation.

[kurt_cagle]

8. Agreed

People forget what an exceptional set of conditions applied after WWII. The US was essentially the last man standing, and as such was in a much better position to help both Europe and Asia - but it wouldn't have been able to do so if the US economy wasn't in fact beginning to pick up dramatically even before the war.

Wars are usually destructive of capital ... even for the winning side. Milindustrial companies love them, of course - the Defense Department buys in bulk at near retail prices, the MI corps don't generally have to worry about dissatisfied customers or product returns, and significant amounts of the goods produced are intended for one and only one use. However, the effect upon the economy of wars tends to be fairly disastrous, as it takes away money from investment, infrastructure and education.

Consider also that of all the wars that the US has been involved in since World War II, the only ones that didn't end up in a loss were those that were very limited in engagement - the first Iraq war, for instance, or the action in the Balkans. Both were successful because they had a limited objective and weren't intended as wars of occupation. Korea was a war of attrition that was played to a draw, Vietnam failed because it was a war of occupation without clear objectives, Iraq II and Afghanistan were both fought primarily as wars of conquest in order to insure the flow of oil to the West (among other reasons). It can be argued that Iraq in particular has been a colossal drain on the treasury - something which contributed to the fiscal crisis currently playing out in Congress.

[HereSince1628]

5. In the 1890's it was just a pleasant little war with Spain

That made TR famous, made possible torture at Gitmo and gave us an opportunity to make the Death March in Bataan.

We're setting up to hammer norther South America. The NeoCons think it'll be a lot like the Spanish American War.

I don't especially think that is fortuitous.

[Javaman]

6. Recession, depression, war. As the old saying goes. nt

[haele]

7. Actually, we need a "works" economy -

A major initiative - such as increasing manufacturing by going green or repairing infrastructure - does wonders for the economy.
Looking back historically, the primary difference between a works economy and a war economy is that 5 - 10% of the potential workforce you need to "employ" will be culled out through casualty - the economy still had to pay for the infrastructure and support of the soldiers (supply lines, bases, deployment support) beyond the "pension and medical" or GI bill you would pay for the wounded or those coming back that wouldn't be able to work.
If we as a country - that means both Main Street, Wall Street, and State/Federal Government - focused on four major works:
1) Infrastructure improvement and maintenance
2) Space projects (hubble, ISS, Moon and Mars exploration and exploitation)
3) Green manufacturing and sustainable energy growth
4) "Food" and water supply production and delivery improvement (through land use, agriculture, and fisheries projects)
and added to those works programs Education/Community Service and Single Payer Health Care;

We could get this economy back on a sustainable and profitable/regulated market level within 10 years with only 2, 3 years of real pain to everyone. That includes the wealthy of this country who live off the majority share of the infrastructure of the US Government - they'll have to buy into it also; "pay their fair share as corporate welfare queens".

Haele