Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

War Economy.

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 9:55:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is not refer to the preparation of economy for war but the use of war to fuel economy. For example territory expansion, demanding resource or favourable trading condition.

It is certainly a robbery and is morally unjustifiable, it also potentially causing political upheaval and greatly damage international relationship (WWI, WWII). But in purely economic sense, did war economy is ever be effective? Did all of its benefit, deduced with every expense including resource spend to fight the enemy and gathering allies, is comparable to other economic system.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 10:37:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 9:55:23 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This is not refer to the preparation of economy for war but the use of war to fuel economy. For example territory expansion, demanding resource or favourable trading condition.

It is certainly a robbery and is morally unjustifiable, it also potentially causing political upheaval and greatly damage international relationship (WWI, WWII). But in purely economic sense, did war economy is ever be effective? Did all of its benefit, deduced with every expense including resource spend to fight the enemy and gathering allies, is comparable to other economic system.

Its bad.

The general argument goes that it leads to increase in aggregate demand, hence generating employment, leading to growth and kick starting up the economy. It, however, is fundamentally falacious. Every extra unit of demand gained in a war economy ( due to the destruction in war) is DISPLACED demand. Suppose I have 10 ". I need to buy a suit. However, someone broke my window and now I have to use those 10" to replace the window. The situation provided a sale to the window seller, but 'took away' the sale of the suit shop owner. We don't see the implicit fall in demand and a include that the breaking of window lead to increasing demand in the market.

Apart from the general instability in prices and uncertainity in market that can eat through the wealth endowment.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 11:40:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
War makes people afraid and grateful for scraps.

Prosperity makes people complacent and lazy and greedy.

Economy has a lot to do with the state of mind, not the state of the bank account.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 12:59:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 11:40:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
War makes people afraid and grateful for scraps.

Prosperity makes people complacent and lazy and greedy.

Economy has a lot to do with the state of mind, not the state of the bank account.

Well you have less state of mind to please, many of them would perish in war.. ...that is a joke :P

Any way a friend of mine who agreed to this war economy said that it is good on the condition that

1. The conflict is limited (and won) such as a significant advantage in military strength, or limited super power involvement. Like gun boat policy of old.

2. The conflict does not take place on your soil. May be a bit impractical for modern day tactic with those wide spread terrorism.

But historically, is it of any good, would it be better if Britain had never conquered India or US never forced Japan to open country. Or is that a wise decision they made?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 1:39:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 10:37:42 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/14/2013 9:55:23 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This is not refer to the preparation of economy for war but the use of war to fuel economy. For example territory expansion, demanding resource or favourable trading condition.

It is certainly a robbery and is morally unjustifiable, it also potentially causing political upheaval and greatly damage international relationship (WWI, WWII). But in purely economic sense, did war economy is ever be effective? Did all of its benefit, deduced with every expense including resource spend to fight the enemy and gathering allies, is comparable to other economic system.

Its bad.

The general argument goes that it leads to increase in aggregate demand, hence generating employment, leading to growth and kick starting up the economy. It, however, is fundamentally falacious. Every extra unit of demand gained in a war economy ( due to the destruction in war) is DISPLACED demand. Suppose I have 10 ". I need to buy a suit. However, someone broke my window and now I have to use those 10" to replace the window. The situation provided a sale to the window seller, but 'took away' the sale of the suit shop owner. We don't see the implicit fall in demand and a include that the breaking of window lead to increasing demand in the market.

Apart from the general instability in prices and uncertainity in market that can eat through the wealth endowment.

a) This is only the case if aggregate demand is equal to long-run supply. If for example, a factory is nor running at maximum capacity, due to lack of demand, there's no economic opportunity cost to using the factory for war efforts.
b) Wars have other economic effects besides purely increasing spending. One aspect of war is that it has a positive effect on research & development. Since winning the war requires the other nation/state to have superior economic and technology advances, the state will focus on R&D and created policy that fosters economic growth.
c) There are psychological effects as well. If the war effort is deemed to be considered a cause worth fighting for, people are less likely to engage in principal-agent problems (often deemed office politics) and work for the interests of others, not just for themselves.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 2:05:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 9:39:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Is it bad? is it good? what do you think.

Bad, while a war economy creates temporary growth, a nation is wasting resources building war supplies that will be sent to get blown up, meaning they get no usage out of these resources.

Essentially, they are using precious resources to create things that will get blown up.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 6:48:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 2:05:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/14/2013 9:39:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Is it bad? is it good? what do you think.

Bad, while a war economy creates temporary growth, a nation is wasting resources building war supplies that will be sent to get blown up, meaning they get no usage out of these resources.

Essentially, they are using precious resources to create things that will get blown up.

It's way worse when you lose too...lol.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 6:56:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 6:48:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/14/2013 2:05:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/14/2013 9:39:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Is it bad? is it good? what do you think.

Bad, while a war economy creates temporary growth, a nation is wasting resources building war supplies that will be sent to get blown up, meaning they get no usage out of these resources.

Essentially, they are using precious resources to create things that will get blown up.

It's way worse when you lose too...lol.

Sometimes it's just as bad winning, you have to pay back war debts that you took out from your allies (unless you were the lucky creditor), and still rebuild if you were invaded on the home front, and in the more recent humanitarian wars you are made responsible for helping rebuild your enemies nation once yours is rebuilt too.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 5:43:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, I think that would happen only when a war is badly manage. The same go for business, you fail to manage your finance effeminately, then regardless of the success of your project, you might not have as mush profit as you wish (or even a losses).

The fact that you are spend resource for something to be blow up is also more case-specific rather than economic principle as a whole. In may industry, we also produced product that will going to be consumed but still profitable to engage if such consumption would produce more resource than the original raw material. For example when you supply a grass to a grass-fed dairy farm, the grass is consumed in the process of production but the beef that is collected from the cow is worth more than the grass you supply, so it is still relatively productive to growth grass for the cow even if it will going to be destroyed eventually.

In war, if resource you spend is less than what you gained at the end of the conflict. For example, in gun boat policy of old, US and several other nations gain very favourable trade treaty from the Japanese Shogunate, just with a handful of artillery shell used in naval bombardment.

What I am not sure is there is any economic consequences that could affect the gain you made in conflict (aside from political chaos), making it less favourable than traditional economic policy.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 8:46:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 1:39:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:

a) This is only the case if aggregate demand is equal to long-run supply. If for example, a factory is nor running at maximum capacity, due to lack of demand, there's no economic opportunity cost to using the factory for war efforts.

Yes there is. If a company is performing poorly, they should go under. If their factory is useful, another company will buy it and make a product that is in demand. There's your economic cost.

This is in addition to the energy used, wear and tear and pollution, as well as a host of other costs.

b) Wars have other economic effects besides purely increasing spending. One aspect of war is that it has a positive effect on research & development. Since winning the war requires the other nation/state to have superior economic and technology advances, the state will focus on R&D and created policy that fosters economic growth.

The "enemy" is using pipe bombs and rhetoric. Where, exactly, do we need to focus our R&D in order to overtake them, technologically?

c) There are psychological effects as well. If the war effort is deemed to be considered a cause worth fighting for, people are less likely to engage in principal-agent problems (often deemed office politics) and work for the interests of others, not just for themselves.

When was the last war people considered was worth fighting? Iraq for a short time, but most realize they got duped.

The only wars worth fighting are the ones which stop the powerful from abusing their power.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 1:00:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 8:46:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/14/2013 1:39:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:

a) This is only the case if aggregate demand is equal to long-run supply. If for example, a factory is nor running at maximum capacity, due to lack of demand, there's no economic opportunity cost to using the factory for war efforts.

Yes there is. If a company is performing poorly, they should go under. If their factory is useful, another company will buy it and make a product that is in demand. There's your economic cost.

This is in addition to the energy used, wear and tear and pollution, as well as a host of other costs.

b) Wars have other economic effects besides purely increasing spending. One aspect of war is that it has a positive effect on research & development. Since winning the war requires the other nation/state to have superior economic and technology advances, the state will focus on R&D and created policy that fosters economic growth.

The "enemy" is using pipe bombs and rhetoric. Where, exactly, do we need to focus our R&D in order to overtake them, technologically?

c) There are psychological effects as well. If the war effort is deemed to be considered a cause worth fighting for, people are less likely to engage in principal-agent problems (often deemed office politics) and work for the interests of others, not just for themselves.

When was the last war people considered was worth fighting? Iraq for a short time, but most realize they got duped.

The only wars worth fighting are the ones which stop the powerful from abusing their power.

Well we have Somalia pirate, if you want tot talk about popular opinion.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:32:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 9:55:23 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This is not refer to the preparation of economy for war but the use of war to fuel economy. For example territory expansion, demanding resource or favourable trading condition.

It is certainly a robbery and is morally unjustifiable, it also potentially causing political upheaval and greatly damage international relationship (WWI, WWII). But in purely economic sense, did war economy is ever be effective? Did all of its benefit, deduced with every expense including resource spend to fight the enemy and gathering allies, is comparable to other economic system.

War is amoral. Many would say it is purely immoral, but I disagree. Many would seek social justice through institutions and ideologies like courts and religion, but during wartime, these in large part simply do not exist - not nearly to the extent that they would exist in peace time, and only assuming they were not obliterated during the war.

It is from this amoral base of warfare upon which a basis or morality is created.

---

To answer your bolded question, my answer deals with WWII. Many people think that military production is what finally lifted the US out of economic depression. I firmly disagree. What lifted the US out of depression is that the US WON WWII. It was the only country left standing. All business of a developed nature had to be done with the US, because only the US had factories left standing.

In this sense, a "just war" can indeed lead to economic benefit.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 7:24:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nah, I didn't really think about the USA when I made this point, though I admit that your point hold merit. In my opinion the US is not in to a war economy per se, it is more like your government made war and by coincidence, it fuel your economy. In true war economy, the government fuel the economy with war, that mean they actively seek conflict to win a resource, effectively placed their nation in constant state of war fare (the US disengage once the conflict is resolved).

Nation that would fit this definition would be:

1. The British Empire (at least in the early state)
2. French Second Empire

and the WWII case I am referring to is
3. Nazi Germany (not the US)

Though in some case (such as the forced opening of Japan, US-Mexican war), te US might fit in to example as well but in general it more like I am trying to think that: Assume that the British never forged an empire, they encounter India and America but simply trade with them, would it be economically better or worse than just conquering them the way they did.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 10:58:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 7:24:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Nah, I didn't really think about the USA when I made this point, though I admit that your point hold merit. In my opinion the US is not in to a war economy per se, it is more like your government made war and by coincidence, it fuel your economy. In true war economy, the government fuel the economy with war, that mean they actively seek conflict to win a resource, effectively placed their nation in constant state of war fare (the US disengage once the conflict is resolved).

Nation that would fit this definition would be:

1. The British Empire (at least in the early state)
2. French Second Empire

and the WWII case I am referring to is
3. Nazi Germany (not the US)

Though in some case (such as the forced opening of Japan, US-Mexican war), te US might fit in to example as well but in general it more like I am trying to think that: Assume that the British never forged an empire, they encounter India and America but simply trade with them, would it be economically better or worse than just conquering them the way they did.

1) By conquering India, they were able to fully control the economy. The opium that fueled profits via the China trade for decades was grown in India.

2) The Iraq War also fits this profile. Many people in the US have openly questioned the link between 9/11 and Iraq, and most Democrats and General Petraeus (supreme general in Iraq) dismiss any causal link. The idea then becomes that the Iraq War would have ostensibly been waged to consolidate interests in the Middle East, one which apparently backfired through the sheer incompetency displayed by the Bush administration.

3) I believe that American occupying troops around the world give some form of economic benefit to the US. It is extremely difficult to ascertain this benefit as it is not overt in any form, except perhaps through dollar hegemony, and how with policies regarding the dollar we control the underlying foundations of many of the world's economies.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 11:08:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 10:58:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:24:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Nah, I didn't really think about the USA when I made this point, though I admit that your point hold merit. In my opinion the US is not in to a war economy per se, it is more like your government made war and by coincidence, it fuel your economy. In true war economy, the government fuel the economy with war, that mean they actively seek conflict to win a resource, effectively placed their nation in constant state of war fare (the US disengage once the conflict is resolved).

Nation that would fit this definition would be:

1. The British Empire (at least in the early state)
2. French Second Empire

and the WWII case I am referring to is
3. Nazi Germany (not the US)

Though in some case (such as the forced opening of Japan, US-Mexican war), te US might fit in to example as well but in general it more like I am trying to think that: Assume that the British never forged an empire, they encounter India and America but simply trade with them, would it be economically better or worse than just conquering them the way they did.

1) By conquering India, they were able to fully control the economy. The opium that fueled profits via the China trade for decades was grown in India.

same hegemony, based on the era, that the US has now...maybe even more given their absolute naval dominance (boats being the only real means of distance travel at the time)

2) The Iraq War also fits this profile. Many people in the US have openly questioned the link between 9/11 and Iraq, and most Democrats and General Petraeus (supreme general in Iraq) dismiss any causal link. The idea then becomes that the Iraq War would have ostensibly been waged to consolidate interests in the Middle East, one which apparently backfired through the sheer incompetency displayed by the Bush administration.

3) I believe that American occupying troops around the world give some form of economic benefit to the US. It is extremely difficult to ascertain this benefit as it is not overt in any form, except perhaps through dollar hegemony, and how with policies regarding the dollar we control the underlying foundations of many of the world's economies.

This only works if you keep conquering and gaining the spoils of war. Oherwise, it implodes.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 12:01:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 11:08:08 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 10:58:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:24:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Nah, I didn't really think about the USA when I made this point, though I admit that your point hold merit. In my opinion the US is not in to a war economy per se, it is more like your government made war and by coincidence, it fuel your economy. In true war economy, the government fuel the economy with war, that mean they actively seek conflict to win a resource, effectively placed their nation in constant state of war fare (the US disengage once the conflict is resolved).

Nation that would fit this definition would be:

1. The British Empire (at least in the early state)
2. French Second Empire

and the WWII case I am referring to is
3. Nazi Germany (not the US)

Though in some case (such as the forced opening of Japan, US-Mexican war), te US might fit in to example as well but in general it more like I am trying to think that: Assume that the British never forged an empire, they encounter India and America but simply trade with them, would it be economically better or worse than just conquering them the way they did.

1) By conquering India, they were able to fully control the economy. The opium that fueled profits via the China trade for decades was grown in India.

same hegemony, based on the era, that the US has now...maybe even more given their absolute naval dominance (boats being the only real means of distance travel at the time)

2) The Iraq War also fits this profile. Many people in the US have openly questioned the link between 9/11 and Iraq, and most Democrats and General Petraeus (supreme general in Iraq) dismiss any causal link. The idea then becomes that the Iraq War would have ostensibly been waged to consolidate interests in the Middle East, one which apparently backfired through the sheer incompetency displayed by the Bush administration.

3) I believe that American occupying troops around the world give some form of economic benefit to the US. It is extremely difficult to ascertain this benefit as it is not overt in any form, except perhaps through dollar hegemony, and how with policies regarding the dollar we control the underlying foundations of many of the world's economies.

This only works if you keep conquering and gaining the spoils of war. Oherwise, it implodes.

This is when you consolidate your gains, and ensure you do not overreach.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 12:13:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 12:01:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 11:08:08 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

This only works if you keep conquering and gaining the spoils of war. Oherwise, it implodes.

This is when you consolidate your gains, and ensure you do not overreach.

Therein lies the problem, though. By building a military state, your power increases as your wealth decreases. Eventually, the power is what sustains your wealth, and without the growth in conquest, the power will dissipate, and the whole thing crumbles...EVERY TIME...THE EXACT SAME WAY.

It's an unsustainable model, and it's a long-term loser every time.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 12:45:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 12:13:05 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 12:01:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 11:08:08 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

This only works if you keep conquering and gaining the spoils of war. Oherwise, it implodes.

This is when you consolidate your gains, and ensure you do not overreach.

Therein lies the problem, though. By building a military state, your power increases as your wealth decreases. Eventually, the power is what sustains your wealth, and without the growth in conquest, the power will dissipate, and the whole thing crumbles...EVERY TIME...THE EXACT SAME WAY.

It's an unsustainable model, and it's a long-term loser every time.

There are some false assumptions here. First of all, it's difficult if impossible to conceive of a "military state", if I understand you correctly, that all production serve a military purpose, and that all production becomes productive through gains achieved in warfare.

I took the OP to mean the possibility of warfare being profitable and thus leading to the extraction of military and economic gains via warfare. This is certainly within the realm of possibility, and does not at all necessitate 100% mobilization for war.

---

Regarding your assertion that wealth and power are mutually exclusive, this is fallacious on so many levels that I do not even know where to being to rebut this.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 12:55:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 11:08:08 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 10:58:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:24:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

same hegemony, based on the era, that the US has now...maybe even more given their absolute naval dominance (boats being the only real means of distance travel at the time)

Also, this is 100% false. England had nothing resembling the hegemony that the US has over Europe. Europe was what mattered during Victorian England, and even colonies like India pale in comparison to what England was NOT able to achieve - hegemony over the Continent. The US beats England hands down, similar to Rome beating any Greek hegemony in comparison.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 3:02:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 12:55:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 11:08:08 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 10:58:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:24:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

same hegemony, based on the era, that the US has now...maybe even more given their absolute naval dominance (boats being the only real means of distance travel at the time)

Also, this is 100% false. England had nothing resembling the hegemony that the US has over Europe. Europe was what mattered during Victorian England, and even colonies like India pale in comparison to what England was NOT able to achieve - hegemony over the Continent. The US beats England hands down, similar to Rome beating any Greek hegemony in comparison.

Why does europe matter s much? At the end of the American Revolution, England had crushed France (their only serious threat for world domination), and won that world war.

If France had any resources they wanted, they'd have occupied France.

They lost one small patch of land in North America, and were still more than able to obtain the resources they wanted from that patch.

Resources matter, and England controlled all that mattered at the time.

Even today, dominance over the middle east is more important than Europe is, which is why the 3 potential future super powers, china, russia and the US are shoring up allies, territories and engaging in conflicts there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 3:04:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 12:45:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 12:13:05 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 12:01:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 11:08:08 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

This only works if you keep conquering and gaining the spoils of war. Oherwise, it implodes.

This is when you consolidate your gains, and ensure you do not overreach.

Therein lies the problem, though. By building a military state, your power increases as your wealth decreases. Eventually, the power is what sustains your wealth, and without the growth in conquest, the power will dissipate, and the whole thing crumbles...EVERY TIME...THE EXACT SAME WAY.

It's an unsustainable model, and it's a long-term loser every time.

There are some false assumptions here. First of all, it's difficult if impossible to conceive of a "military state", if I understand you correctly, that all production serve a military purpose, and that all production becomes productive through gains achieved in warfare.

I took the OP to mean the possibility of warfare being profitable and thus leading to the extraction of military and economic gains via warfare. This is certainly within the realm of possibility, and does not at all necessitate 100% mobilization for war.

it does in the end. See Rome for more details.

---

Regarding your assertion that wealth and power are mutually exclusive, this is fallacious on so many levels that I do not even know where to being to rebut this.

Wealth is powerful, but it is not power.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 7:13:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 3:02:24 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 12:55:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 11:08:08 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 10:58:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:24:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

same hegemony, based on the era, that the US has now...maybe even more given their absolute naval dominance (boats being the only real means of distance travel at the time)

Also, this is 100% false. England had nothing resembling the hegemony that the US has over Europe. Europe was what mattered during Victorian England, and even colonies like India pale in comparison to what England was NOT able to achieve - hegemony over the Continent. The US beats England hands down, similar to Rome beating any Greek hegemony in comparison.

Why does europe matter s much? At the end of the American Revolution, England had crushed France (their only serious threat for world domination), and won that world war.

What? Shortly following the American Revolution was Napoleon Bonaparte. I have no idea to what you're referring to about England crushing France in any engagement. They warred all the time, and most of the gains or losses from the wars were insignificant and short-lived, at least on the continent.

If France had any resources they wanted, they'd have occupied France.

Suggest you rephrase this to reflect what you truly mean.

They lost one small patch of land in North America, and were still more than able to obtain the resources they wanted from that patch.

Resources matter, and England controlled all that mattered at the time.

I agree that resources matter a LOT. However, apparently whatever resources England was able to garner was simply not sufficient to challenge the continent. This points to how ineffectual the British empire truly was.

Even today, dominance over the middle east is more important than Europe is, which is why the 3 potential future super powers, china, russia and the US are shoring up allies, territories and engaging in conflicts there.

False. Today, Europe is much more important economically than the Middle East. This COULD change in the future if oil prices skyrocket, but for now, Europe's economy is still far more significant than all of the Middle East combined.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 7:32:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 3:04:05 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 12:45:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 12:13:05 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 12:01:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/17/2013 11:08:08 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

This only works if you keep conquering and gaining the spoils of war. Oherwise, it implodes.

This is when you consolidate your gains, and ensure you do not overreach.

Therein lies the problem, though. By building a military state, your power increases as your wealth decreases. Eventually, the power is what sustains your wealth, and without the growth in conquest, the power will dissipate, and the whole thing crumbles...EVERY TIME...THE EXACT SAME WAY.

It's an unsustainable model, and it's a long-term loser every time.

There are some false assumptions here. First of all, it's difficult if impossible to conceive of a "military state", if I understand you correctly, that all production serve a military purpose, and that all production becomes productive through gains achieved in warfare.

I took the OP to mean the possibility of warfare being profitable and thus leading to the extraction of military and economic gains via warfare. This is certainly within the realm of possibility, and does not at all necessitate 100% mobilization for war.

it does in the end. See Rome for more details.

Everyone dies. All governments fail. There is always an end. However, to suggest that that end results in 100% mobilization is totally absurd. That is not how the Roman Republic ended...Caesar only had 5,000 troops when he crossed the Rubicon. This is hardly 100% mobilization, yet it changed Roman history and ended its polity at the time.

Furthermore, WWII, the largest conflict the world has ever seen, was nowhere close to 100% mobilization for any country. This includes the winners (the US, Britain, Russia), and the losers (Germany and Japan).

Regarding your assertion that wealth and power are mutually exclusive, this is fallacious on so many levels that I do not even know where to being to rebut this.

Wealth is powerful, but it is not power.

You thus agree that they are not mutually exclusive. Accumulation of wealth is highly correlated with the accumulation of power, not what you are asserting, that "power increases as your wealth decreases"
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 7:41:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I also want to point out that the only society I can think of that approached something close to 100% mobilization is Mongolia under Genghis Khan. This state of affairs was hardly a defeat for them, and expanded Mongolia's influence to the far corners of the world for hundreds of years. One could even argue that the main reason why Mongolia lost its empire was because they turned their back on their own traditions, which involved anything BUT the sedentary lifestyle of their subjects, and eroded their ability to wage the mobile wars they waged as a pastoral civilization.

Genghis Khan actively contemplated razing every city he conquered to the ground and culling entire civilizations. What stopped him from doing so was that the Chinese convinced him that those civilizations would be more profitable for him to maintain than to destroy. This "evil", this motivation of greed, ended up destroying the Mongolian empire, at least for the Mongols. One could argue that the Mongols would have been better off had Genghis Khan actually destroyed every city he conquered and killed every person that lost to him via force of arms. After all, he won the right to do so by destroying every army fielded against him.

And you wonder why I consider morality to be subjective.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:41:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 7:13:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What? Shortly following the American Revolution was Napoleon Bonaparte. I have no idea to what you're referring to about England crushing France in any engagement. They warred all the time, and most of the gains or losses from the wars were insignificant and short-lived, at least on the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The war was driven by the antagonism between Great Britain (in personal union with Hanover) and the Bourbons (in France and Spain), resulting from overlapping interests in their colonial and trade empires, and by the antagonism between the Hohenzollerns (in Prussia) and Habsburgs (Holy Roman Emperors and archdukes in Austria), resulting from territorial and hegemonial conflicts in the Holy Roman Empire.


Great Britain expelled its French and Spanish rivals in the contested overseas territories, gaining the bulk of New France, Spanish Florida, some Caribbean islands, Senegal and superiority over the French outposts on the Indian subcontinent. The native American tribes were excluded from the peace settlement, and were unable to return to their former status after the resulting Pontiac's rebellion.


If France had any resources they wanted, they'd have occupied France.

Suggest you rephrase this to reflect what you truly mean.

What does France have? Baguettes, wine, a few hot girls and a lot of attitude. Their natural resources, and especially those which were of any consequence in the 1800s, were few. They're useless.

Remember, these are the same people who built a wall to repel the Germans prior to WW2.

They lost one small patch of land in North America, and were still more than able to obtain the resources they wanted from that patch.

Resources matter, and England controlled all that mattered at the time.

I agree that resources matter a LOT. However, apparently whatever resources England was able to garner was simply not sufficient to challenge the continent. This points to how ineffectual the British empire truly was.

During the 19th century, to achieve lasting peace, the Concert of Europe tried to maintain the balance of power. This policy was largely successful in averting a full-scale Europe-wide war for almost a century, until the First World War.[1] Specifically, during the first half of the 19th century, Britain and France dominated Europe, but by the 1850s they had become deeply concerned by the growing power of Russia and Prussia.

Huh? European history isn't my strong suit, I will admit, but I think you got sh!t a little mixed up, my man.

Even today, dominance over the middle east is more important than Europe is, which is why the 3 potential future super powers, china, russia and the US are shoring up allies, territories and engaging in conflicts there.

False. Today, Europe is much more important economically than the Middle East. This COULD change in the future if oil prices skyrocket, but for now, Europe's economy is still far more significant than all of the Middle East combined.

Oil prices NOT skyrocketing is why The Middle East is more important than Europe.

Take a look at this chart - http://www.eere.energy.gov...

See the inverse relationship between GDP growth and oil prices?

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Just like EVERYTHING ELSE in the world, including all wars not expressly waged for the purpose of religion (and even those, I might argue shouldn't be excluded), it's all about scarce resources and who can claim them, despite having no legitimate claim to them.

Scarcity and resources are ALL THAT EVER MATTERS, and they are the reason why people crave power - to steal what is left of whatever they want so that they can have it and no one else can.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 3:23:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 12:41:18 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:13:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What? Shortly following the American Revolution was Napoleon Bonaparte. I have no idea to what you're referring to about England crushing France in any engagement. They warred all the time, and most of the gains or losses from the wars were insignificant and short-lived, at least on the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The war was driven by the antagonism between Great Britain (in personal union with Hanover) and the Bourbons (in France and Spain), resulting from overlapping interests in their colonial and trade empires, and by the antagonism between the Hohenzollerns (in Prussia) and Habsburgs (Holy Roman Emperors and archdukes in Austria), resulting from territorial and hegemonial conflicts in the Holy Roman Empire.


Great Britain expelled its French and Spanish rivals in the contested overseas territories, gaining the bulk of New France, Spanish Florida, some Caribbean islands, Senegal and superiority over the French outposts on the Indian subcontinent. The native American tribes were excluded from the peace settlement, and were unable to return to their former status after the resulting Pontiac's rebellion.


You've proven my point. Nothing...NOTHING Britain did affected continental affairs. Yes, there were shuffles between colonial magistrates, but nothing affected the affairs on the continent. Nothing Britain could have done could have impacted France's territorial integrity where it mattered most - in France.

If France had any resources they wanted, they'd have occupied France.

Suggest you rephrase this to reflect what you truly mean.

What does France have? Baguettes, wine, a few hot girls and a lot of attitude. Their natural resources, and especially those which were of any consequence in the 1800s, were few. They're useless.

If Napoleon had all the resources he wanted, he would have conquered Russia. He would have established an empire to rival Rome. This empire may even have had the staying power of Rome. Britain would have eventually fell to such a power. After all, Napoleon could have built a navy in the Mediterranean, unchallenged by Britain due to the ease of defending Gibraltar. In due time, Napoleon, with the might of the entire European continent behind him, could have easily challenged and defeated Britain in Britain.

Remember, these are the same people who built a wall to repel the Germans prior to WW2.

This is because Napoleon lost. Germany, once united, then took its rightful place as the preeminent continental power, one it still holds to this day, even after losing two disastrous conflicts in the early 20th century.

They lost one small patch of land in North America, and were still more than able to obtain the resources they wanted from that patch.

Resources matter, and England controlled all that mattered at the time.

I agree that resources matter a LOT. However, apparently whatever resources England was able to garner was simply not sufficient to challenge the continent. This points to how ineffectual the British empire truly was.

During the 19th century, to achieve lasting peace, the Concert of Europe tried to maintain the balance of power. This policy was largely successful in averting a full-scale Europe-wide war for almost a century, until the First World War.[1] Specifically, during the first half of the 19th century, Britain and France dominated Europe, but by the 1850s they had become deeply concerned by the growing power of Russia and Prussia.

I will address this in another comment.

Even today, dominance over the middle east is more important than Europe is, which is why the 3 potential future super powers, china, russia and the US are shoring up allies, territories and engaging in conflicts there.

False. Today, Europe is much more important economically than the Middle East. This COULD change in the future if oil prices skyrocket, but for now, Europe's economy is still far more significant than all of the Middle East combined.

Oil prices NOT skyrocketing is why The Middle East is more important than Europe.

Take a look at this chart - http://www.eere.energy.gov...

See the inverse relationship between GDP growth and oil prices?

Yes I do. You have proven my point. Oil prices are not skyrocketing. Therefore, at this present time, Europe is more important than the Middle East.

Europe has something that people in the Middle East dream of - water. If both water and oil are scarce, then a river of water is much more important than a river of oil.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

To counter your map of the British Empire at its height (from my debate with Mouthwash):

http://filmandsoundcollaboration.files.wordpress.com...
http://www.debate.org...

America has occupying troops in Europe, something Britain was never able to do. Looking outside of Europe, America has assumed the British empire. Furthermore, America has troops in Britain herself. Whatever vestiges of power Britain had or still has in its former empire, America now controls.

Just like EVERYTHING ELSE in the world, including all wars not expressly waged for the purpose of religion (and even those, I might argue shouldn't be excluded), it's all about scarce resources and who can claim them, despite having no legitimate claim to them.

Scarcity and resources are ALL THAT EVER MATTERS, and they are the reason why people crave power - to steal what is left of whatever they want so that they can have it and no one else can.

I agree that power and scarcity are closely related. However, power AND scarcity are on the side of Europe vis a vis the Middle East. If and when oil prices skyrocket and reach a sustainable plateau, then perhaps this will change, but not now.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 3:26:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 12:41:18 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:13:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

During the 19th century, to achieve lasting peace, the Concert of Europe tried to maintain the balance of power. This policy was largely successful in averting a full-scale Europe-wide war for almost a century, until the First World War.[1] Specifically, during the first half of the 19th century, Britain and France dominated Europe, but by the 1850s they had become deeply concerned by the growing power of Russia and Prussia.

First of all, no idea what [1] links to, or where you got this information from.

Second, what I highlighted in your statement is laughably false:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

LIST OF CONFLICTS IN EUROPE, 19TH CENTURY:

1803 Irish Rebellion of 1803
1803 Souliote War
1803"1815 Napoleonic Wars
1804"1813 First Serbian Uprising
1804"1813 Russo"Persian War
1809 Polish-Austrian War
1815"1817 Second Serbian Uprising
1817"1864 Russian conquest of the Caucasus
1821"1832 Greek War of Independence
1821 Wallachian uprising of 1821
1823 French invasion of Spain
1826"1828 Russo"Persian War
1827 War of the Malcontents
1828"1829 Russo-Turkish War
1828"1834 Liberal Wars
1830 Ten Days Campaign (following the Belgian Revolt)
1830"1831 November Uprising
1831 Canut revolts
1831"1832 Great Bosnian uprising
1831"1836 Tithe War
1832 War in the Vend"e and Chouannerie of 1832
1832 June Rebellion
1833"1839 First Carlist War
1833"1839 Albanian Revolts of 1833"1839
1843"1844 Albanian Revolt of 1843"1844
1846 Galician slaughter
1846"1849 Second Carlist War
1847 Albanian Revolt of 1847
1847 Sonderbund War
1848"1849 Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence
1848"1851 First Schleswig War
1848"1866 Wars of Italian Independence
1848"1849 First Italian Independence War
1859 Second Italian War of Independence
1866 Third Italian War of Independence
1853"1856 Crimean War
1854 Epirus Revolt of 1854
1858 Mahtra War
1863"1864 January Uprising
1864 Second Schleswig War
1866 Austro-Prussian War
1866"1869 Cretan Revolt
1867 Fenian Rising
1870"1871 Franco-Prussian War
1872"1876 Third Carlist War
1873"1874 Cantonal Revolution
1877"1878 Russo"Turkish War
1878 Epirus Revolt of 1878
1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War
1893"1896 Cod War of 1893
1897 Greco"Turkish War

Balance of powers my @$$.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 3:30:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To compare, here is 300 years of Roman history from the founding of the Empire (same source):

35-41 Iberian-Parthian war
49"96 Roman conquest of Britain
51 Iberian-Armenian war
69 Year of the Four Emperors
193 Year of the Five Emperors
208"210 Severan invasion of Caledonia
238 Year of the Six Emperors
271"278 Colchis-Roman War
284"285 Roman civil war

Notice that because of the LACK OF BALANCE OF POWERS, because Rome was supreme, that in a time period three times longer, we get only a small fraction of the number of wars that occurred in Europe during your supposed peace from balance of powers in the 19th century.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:38:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 3:23:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

You've proven my point. Nothing...NOTHING Britain did affected continental affairs. Yes, there were shuffles between colonial magistrates, but nothing affected the affairs on the continent. Nothing Britain could have done could have impacted France's territorial integrity where it mattered most - in France.

They didn't care about Europe. They were building an empire and doing so by conquering everyone else's territories/colonies, as well as maintaining their own.

They had no desire to conquer the mainland of Europe. If they did, they would have concentrated on land forces instead of naval forces and technology.

I didn't prove your point. Your point is meaningless. I still have no idea why you are so focused on a continent so devoid of natural resources (outside of Mother Russia) that they moved to nuclear power out of necessity, not choice.

If Napoleon had all the resources he wanted, he would have conquered Russia.

No he wouldn't have. If there is one constant rule in war, it is don't f*ck with the Russians in Russia. You'll lose every time. (as you know, I live with the child of the most decorated American soldier from WW2, and despite all his heroics, he stated regularly that he would rather learn to speak Russian than fight them...)

He would have established an empire to rival Rome. This empire may even have had the staying power of Rome. Britain would have eventually fell to such a power. After all, Napoleon could have built a navy in the Mediterranean, unchallenged by Britain due to the ease of defending Gibraltar. In due time, Napoleon, with the might of the entire European continent behind him, could have easily challenged and defeated Britain in Britain.

I think the Napoleon complex would have caught up to him in the end, but that's neither here nor there.

This is because Napoleon lost. Germany, once united, then took its rightful place as the preeminent continental power, one it still holds to this day, even after losing two disastrous conflicts in the early 20th century.

Actually, it's because the politicians at the time listen to Maginot instead of the generals who were telling them that a more mobile infantry was what was needed to defend France. It was one bad decision that's great for jokes, but it has nothing to do with what you're saying it does.

Yes I do. You have proven my point. Oil prices are not skyrocketing. Therefore, at this present time, Europe is more important than the Middle East.

They have, and they will. Oil prices are not skyrocketing in the US because the US has a massive supply of oil, as does Canada and Mexico. BUT, our untapped reserves are small, and so we are (poorly) attempting to secure the untapped reserves left in the world, and those reserves exist in The Middle East.

Europe has something that people in the Middle East dream of - water. If both water and oil are scarce, then a river of water is much more important than a river of oil.

We don't conquer a place for its people. We conquer it for its resources, and if we were going after water, we'd head up to Canada where they have more of it than all of Europe combined.

What the hell are you talking about?

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

To counter your map of the British Empire at its height (from my debate with Mouthwash):

http://filmandsoundcollaboration.files.wordpress.com...
http://www.debate.org...

America has occupying troops in Europe, something Britain was never able to do. Looking outside of Europe, America has assumed the British empire. Furthermore, America has troops in Britain herself. Whatever vestiges of power Britain had or still has in its former empire, America now controls.

Something they were smart enough not to do. Also, they didn't have the advantage of Europeans blowing themselves up, needing their armed forces manpower to assist in the rebuilding.

That was luck, and the European bases are good for little outside of strategic deployment elsewhere.

The bases in Germany are the only European bases of any import remaining.

I agree that power and scarcity are closely related. However, power AND scarcity are on the side of Europe vis a vis the Middle East. If and when oil prices skyrocket and reach a sustainable plateau, then perhaps this will change, but not now.

Seriously, dude...help me out here because I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying here.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...