Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Would a third world war benefit the economy ?

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 13, 2011, 1:46 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverA (610)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Is this an option on the table our politicians are considering ?



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 10 years ago

An attack against Iran is sufficient to stimulate the economy.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

Its going to happen whether the politicians want it to or not.

[-] 1 points by iamalsoows (86) 10 years ago

Noop, it is up to the oligarchy with a very few un-elected deciding. Politicians are just pawns with nothing really to say except fool the people.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago


[-] 1 points by iamalsoows (86) 10 years ago

This is a first. Thank you. You and me are now two people in the world lets go fight together. Che Chevara and Fidel Castro did with a handful of men. It actually only takes ONE man to start a world war or revolution. Who needs OWS and tons of silly people. Who will sacrifice them self and go into history? Pun intended just to be nice. But really.

I am doing my own darn revolution every day when I visit or call the government. I know they are not listening but I know they know I know and I will use words until I die.

[-] 1 points by iamalsoows (86) 10 years ago

Third World War started in 1945. Sorry, you are too late.

Fourth, yes, they not only contemplate they are setting it up.

Let me rephrase that: Fourth World War started sep 11 2001 and we are now waiting for the fifth world war, actually.

Read this book: Grand Chessboard


[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

has there been benefits ?

[-] 1 points by iamalsoows (86) 10 years ago

Oh yes. Plenty. That is why 1 and 2 and 3 started in the first place.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

has anyone else noticed a war in 1945 to back what this poster has commented ?

[-] 1 points by iamalsoows (86) 10 years ago

I think you might want to misunderstand my point. Wars are not only using weapons like real guns. Wars can be done using other means. besides that the Cold War started and that was a war, right. So that was the 3 world war. 4th. was announced by George Bush shortly after 911.



Why are you questioning this? Did you not learn this in school?

They called it cold war... hence it was a world war lasting for five decades.

Why on earth did you not know that there had been 4 world wars? Officially no, I know. But war is war globally when you have these two wars covering all continents.

Besides that there has been many both local and international REAL wars since 1945 using weapons like guns.



Boy, I think I could make a lot of money being a teacher. Not!

In fact, there has been far more World wars than 4,5 or 6 etc. I have not counted them all. Perhaps 30 in the past 2000 years... just a guess. the past years since 1900 there has been four. That is about 4 per 100 years. you take it from there.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 10 years ago

War also devastates infrastructure, no matter how new it may be. Why not just be peaceful and allow that infrastructure to be used for far more years with less labour costs.

War is only good for stimulating innovation. But the capacity to innovate to that speed or scale did not appear from nowhere at the onset of war. The capacity already existed, the war created a mere incentive to reach for their full potential. Why could that not be achieved in peacetime?

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 10 years ago

it worked for the last great depression, but at that time we weren't 15T in hock. a war would be completely unaffordable--i don't think it could be funded--last WWII was funded with war bonds, and the country had a massive campaign to encourage the people to buy war bonds. with so many homeowners paying huge mortgages, they cannot afford to do that, and similarly, other countries are in hock--china cut off the buying of treasuries too--that's why the Fed had to do QE 1 and QE2--there were quite literally no other buyers (funders) of US debt on the scale they needed. it is truly incredible this mess.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 10 years ago

If you're lucky one day the Chinese may offer to buy America's debts if it promises to fight wars for it. Then America goes to war with who China wants it to go to war with, all under the guise of being a free nation fighting for what it believes in. Heck it could be the puppet of other countries right now.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 10 years ago

the chinese bought massive US debts (bonds) in 2008-2010, then said they would buy no more... in fact they've been selling the bonds in the market to unload since early this year.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 10 years ago

I know, thats where "if you're lucky" came in :)

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 10 years ago

Because it's not profitable enough, but at war time people don't mind spending money on it.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

we have achieved a great many things during peacetime..

necessity is the mother of invention .. someone once wrote.. was the wheel invented out of necessity?

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 10 years ago

I'm not saying we invent nothing during peacetime, I know we invent much. Just that we could probably invent more :) It boggles the mind how much of todays technology had its roots in warfare and in war time. Well my mind anyway.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

I would like to invent global peace, and equality for everyone.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 10 years ago

Me too :)

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 10 years ago

War increases GDP for the countries that produce weapons and heavy artillery, creates more jobs and reduces population. All of which are beneficial for the monetary system and constitutes economic growth. It's also beneficial for the countries who's currency are borrowed to pay for all of it. But the main beneficiaries, of cause, are the banks as they are the ones who loans the money to the participating governments on both sides.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

yikes .. that looks way to tempting .. for the greedy sociopath..

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

Obama's stimulus plan - American Jobs Act

Bush's stimulus plan - Iraq War

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

Bush did not need a stimulus plan .. the economy was booming.. wake up jaded I know you can do better .. you really should not try to be negative .. it's just not you .. and you stumble everytime .. stick with the positive ..and you will accomplish more and go further .. good post btw about theodore and critics ..

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

And once again my ultra wry sense of humor bombs. get it. bombs. ha. I kill myself.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 10 years ago

what? 2001-2003 was a recessionary period brought about by the bankers, again, by over-allocating capital to tech and internet startups... alot of people lost their shirts and jobs in the collapse.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 10 years ago

Yes. But only those who stayed out of the war initially and came in at the end.

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 10 years ago

No, it destroys wealth, people, and property.

But if it did, would you want a more vibrant economy at the price of thousands or millions being killed? Especially if you and your friends or family could possibly be in that murdered population? Or have to go and murder others?

Give me a little underemployment any day.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 10 years ago

If it would work then I would understand turning to it. However, the way things stand right now a full-sized war will probably do even more damage to our economy and get a lot of our people killed, especially when you consider the possibility of World War III due to a confrontation over a rogue Iran with nukes.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

how would it benefit the economy? war only destroys lives and property .. I have often wondered why world war 2 was economically successful .. where did the money suddenly come to support it ? and why couldn't that same money have been used during the thirties and created a prosperous economy? without the war..

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 10 years ago

every man woman and child was hired to make bullets, tanks, etc... for the ramp up or to fight. it was funded through war bonds, which the government heavily promoted to the banks and citizens--i have a friend who collects those "buy war bond posters" and other art. see my comment above... we probably couldn't get the funding this time around. everyone's too indebted right now.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 10 years ago

Its hard to say, but I think it has something to do with the way money works while it is circulating. The problem with the 20s was that after the crash, money stopped circulating, delaying the recuperation of the economy. When a war starts, and materials are needed asap for preparation, money has more of an incentive to be circulated again.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

but it must have been government money that paid for the war .. not private money ..? did they actually go in debt ? so than where was the economic gain ?unless as capitalism goes the government debt funded war profited many capitalists .. that has to be the only right answer .. ? just to get some money poured into the economy .. and war forced this to happen ..

so .. there for if war is thrust upon us .. our government would go deeper in debt to fight the war and all this debt money in circulation would stimulate the economy .. a lousy way of stimulating the economy isn't it ? but certainly necessary .. to protect oneself in times of war ..

back in the 20's and on into the thirties .. as modestcapitalist has described this .. there was a lot of wealth accumulated at the top .. equal to what we have today in percentage .. ..history may be repeating itself .. as we speak..

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 10 years ago

Its possible that the money came from investors who thought they could get their money back. Before the war, there was no way to get any money back, because money wasn't circulating. But according to one report the debt increased from $49 billion in 1941 to $259 billion in 1945.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 10 years ago

the gov't issued a massive amount of bonds to pay for the war, hence the debt buildup... since the US has never defaulted in paying bonds, the investors got their money back with interest.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

okay .. so the investors see the government is spending on war materials so they invest in such and sell it to the government for profit .. while the government goes deeper into debt .. made a lot of people money .. there has to be another way..

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 10 years ago

This must be another way, unfortunately, this is still the way the U.S. operates.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

we need to find a way to have the people with money start spending .. without war .. perhaps if we put an expiry date on money they would not save it ?

[-] 2 points by naepius (15) 10 years ago

Greatly reduce the sales tax and replace the lost tax income with a currency savings tax, in effect changing the system into one which punishes currency hording, phases out the usefulness of banks, and lightens the burden of the wage slaves.

There is no need to worry over what the government will do to provide welfare with less overall tax income in the long run. After banks begin to shutter and the hording tax income diminishes, the need for welfare will simultaneously decline as the ability of the banks to defraud the population of its currency is nullified.

It's an idea that is absolutely gawked at among capitalists despite the fact that savings could still be accrued through careful planning of commodity and other non-monetary investments that are less susceptible to market manipulation. It just goes to show how disconnected capitalism is these days. Does true, uncorrupted capitalism view fiat currency as capital? What about intellectual property? I think those who envisioned capitalism would consider both to be folly and a corruption of the system.

I am not altogether anti-capitalistic provided it is implemented the way it ought to be. When corporations like Apple are given free reign to corrupt the free market system through set pricing contracts with retailers that create artificial demand, we no longer are using capitalism as it was intended.

Sit back and think for a while why it is that government refuses to determine a monetary value of a life. We all know the reasoning they give us - how immoral is it to try and sum up a person's life into a monetary value? In reality, we do it every day and nothing is amiss as long as we're talking about living people. Only when it comes to a life that has ended is the subject deemed taboo. So, what's the more likely explanation? If deceased human life had a set monetary value then no government could ever rationalize any war as having any value, ever.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 10 years ago

well at least we are looking at this with open eyes ..and brainstroming freely .. there was a time when "all hail capitalism" was the praise of the day .. and to speak negatively was absolutely forbidden.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 10 years ago

Yes! Is it right NO!