Does America have a war base economy?

It's more than a reminder. Wannabe dictators taking over other countries is what happened in the 30's. The next 30's are only 5 years away. Those that don't understand history are bound to repeat it. Even if it was awful, some may still repeat it.
 
JustDave said:
It's more than a reminder. Wannabe dictators taking over other countries is what happened in the 30's. The next 30's are only 5 years away. Those that don't understand history are bound to repeat it. Even if it was awful, some may still repeat it.
Click to expand...

:| We haven't 'taken over' anything. Wild exaggeration is as good as a lie.
 

Most of the angst seems to be due to America backing away from militancy. Those who want it should pay their own way for a change. Others are too weak to be trusted to remain independent from larger threats and on the verge of a 1917 themselves.
 
gruntlabor said:
:| We haven't 'taken over' anything. Wild exaggeration is as good as a lie.
Click to expand...
We haven't yet, but don't forget that Russian already is, and can finish this with just a little help from us. And don't forget that just talking about it was always the first step in the actual aggression. It only looks like a wild exaggeration to those who don't like the comparison. Sorry I brought this up.
 
Paco Dennis said:
I could research this question by search tools but from your years of experience hasn't there always been a war since you have been alive?
I think one of our biggest manufacturing is for the military.
If we have always been at war, doesn't it follow that our entire economy is based on weapon use and sales?
Click to expand...
With whom are we at war now? I've been alive since 1952. Defense spending as a percentage of the overall budget has decreased, not increased, over that time.
 
JustDave said:
We haven't yet, but don't forget that Russian already is, and can finish this with just a little help from us. And don't forget that just talking about it was always the first step in the actual aggression. It only looks like a wild exaggeration to those who don't like the comparison. Sorry I brought this up.
Click to expand...
.. I understand. And China. Nobody notices China's inexorable reach into India and other countries. For China it's still a land grab.
Right now, everyone is jockeying for control of the Arctic.
 
I think other parts of the world have bigger problems.

The EU is advertising for people to put together 72-hour survival "go bags" as they move toward a military draft that explicitly includes women this time. Beating war drums and posturing, describing conversion of industries to produce military vehicles, weapons, and supplies. Printing more money as they discuss seizing "unused savings" to finance their ambitions. This isn't just the EU of course, but also non-member nations within Europe.

 
Ok, is male aggressiveness in play here at all. We all will agree that males are superior to women in the strength dept.. :) I was yelling at our rooster this morning to shut up, and he came closer gearing up for a fight. The running of thr Bulls. The Super Bowl. Porn. Etc. It's a man's world. Ty James Brown, cept he ain't nothing without his women. :)
So do we base our economy on male testosterone?
 
Last edited:
Paco Dennis said:
Ok, is male aggressiveness in play here at all. We all will agree that males are superior to women in the strength dept.. :) I was yelling at our rooster this morning to shut up, and he came closer gearing up for a fight. The running of thr Bulls. The Super Bowl. Porn. Etc. It's a man's world. Ty James Brown, cept he ain't nothing without his women. :)
So do we base our economy on male testosterone?
Click to expand...
You were just basing it on defense spending. I pointed out you were wrong. Now you're blaming testosterone?
 
Aunt Bea said:
Spending in any category doesn’t bother me as much as not sticking to a pay as you go plan.

We are amazingly fortunate that we haven’t had a war in our homeland since our own Civil War.

I’m sure that there are a few countries that would look forward to us trimming our defense budget.

I’m afraid that if they are patient they will be able to buy enough of our debt to take over without firing a shot.
Click to expand...
Funny you mentioned that Aunt Bea. My BFF lives in a resort town and gets to talk with condo owners/renters from all over. One woman is in her 90s and her family narrowly escaped the holocaust. After coming to this country, she made it her business to research historical events. She told my BFF that Khrushchev once said one day Russia would take America and not one shot would have to be fired.

Re the OP: @Paco Dennis I've always heard that war is a money making business.
 
Magna-Carta said:
I don't get the impression that the US has a "war" base economy, but it seems somewhat clear that a significant part of its economy is based on war and arms sales. A country such as the USA, that has some significant political power to persuade other nations to stop some military programs so that those countries buy from the US instead, seems to suggest that the US has war on its mind in some way or another.

The US has on occasion persuaded the UK to drop the development of its own weapons systems and put pressure on the UK to buy American instead. I think it at least goes as far back as the British TSR-2 program of the 60's.
Click to expand...
This mirrors my thinking. The US, as early as the Great War, has made money selling armaments and equipment to other countries.
 
Paco Dennis said:
I could research this question by search tools but from your years of experience hasn't there always been a war since you have been alive?
I think one of our biggest manufacturing is for the military.
If we have always been at war, doesn't it follow that our entire economy is based on weapon use and sales?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't follow.
Not only that, but defense spending, for our own defense and that of others, has always and should represent a big chunk of the economy.
Defense is the most important of the few legitimate purposes of the federal government, in my opinion.
 
IMO, war expenditure does play a part in the overall economy, but it is not "war based".
If that were the case, and we weren't at war, then our economy would collapse, and I don't believe that's true.
Less military spending shrinks the budget, which means there is less government dollars going into the general economy, which means less money coming into government, so it should balance out.

Currently, I think military spending is around 12% of the budget, and it's approved through a collaborative process involving multiple branches of government. If there is no war at present, then the budget is adjusted accordingly, and if war breaks out, there are contingency measures in place for emergency spending.
 
bobcat said:
IMO, war expenditure does play a part in the overall economy, but it is not "war based".
If that were the case, and we weren't at war, then our economy would collapse, and I don't believe that's true.
Less military spending shrinks the budget, which means there is less government dollars going into the general economy, which means less money coming into government, so it should balance out.

Currently, I think military spending is around 12% of the budget, and it's approved through a collaborative process involving multiple branches of government. If there is no war at present, then the budget is adjusted accordingly, and if war breaks out, there are contingency measures in place for emergency spending.
Click to expand...
Your idea would be true "if" war wasn't systemically necessary. BUT, the U.S. economy isn’t just "partially" war-based—it’s structurally dependent on perpetual war spending, arms exports, and global military dominance. The system is designed to require conflict, whether hot wars, cold wars, or manufactured threats (China, Russia, terrorism). Without it, the economic dislocation would be catastrophic—which is why no administration, Democrat or Republican, ever truly disarms.
 
Paco Dennis said:
Your idea would be true "if" war wasn't systemically necessary. BUT, the U.S. economy isn’t just "partially" war-based—it’s structurally dependent on perpetual war spending, arms exports, and global military dominance. The system is designed to require conflict, whether hot wars, cold wars, or manufactured threats (China, Russia, terrorism). Without it, the economic dislocation would be catastrophic—which is why no administration, Democrat or Republican, ever truly disarms.
Click to expand...
I am curious as to why you asked the question if your view is the only one that makes sense to you.
 
Paco Dennis said:
No your not going to make this personal. Argue the points, the subject matter, not some sophomoric philosophy. Tell me when this " adjustable economy"will happen and how. It is not possible. That is nuts, because anything is possible. If you don't think it is war based, what is it based on? What is best for the consumer? . :)
Click to expand...
It's not personal, and what is the point of discussing this matter with you when you insult my philosophy.
The mere fact that other countries who are not currently at war with anyone and have a working economy speaks for itself.
 
From what I’ve read, we spend more on our military/defense than any other nation but our military/defense spending is still only about 3.5% of GDP.

Consumer spending comes in at 65%-70% of GDP.

IMO it would be a very bad idea for any country to be the first to drastically reduce or eliminate defense spending.
 
@Bob Sorry bout that reply...totnado just was sighted near here and it is tense. Your right in that it is not a completely war base. We have many other resourses, but our economy would fold if we cut into our war budget. It is like other mass changes humans need to make. Eating right, adjusting to new tech, inequality, education, and global warming.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top