It happens when you wage continuous war at a cost of trillions and don’t pay for it. As predictable as the rising and the setting of the sun. Incredible that a war-mongering president and the neocons would be elected not just once, but twice. As Bush tried to say, “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”
Cross-posting here from my Jim Morin post:Facts on disparity between rich and poor:The poverty rate in 2010 rose to an embarrassing 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009. “There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009 — the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published,” reported the Census Bureau.“The top 10th of 1 percent takes home about 24 percent of all American wealth.”http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.htmlBut the really scary fact, care of the Wall Street Journal, is that big consumer companies (e.g., P&G) are no longer targeting the middle class that grew them, because it no longer exists. Instead, they are targeting either the rich, or the poor. The Gini Index of income inequality tagged us at 0.468, a 20% increase in income disparity over the last 40 years, which makes us comparable to Mexico and the Philippines. Yes, you got that right. For all the blathering by the right about “redistributing wealth,” the fact is that the wealth has been redistributed — into a very small number of hands, and away from most Americans. SOMETHING needs to be done to raise the wealth of more Americans — and the “job creators” haven’t done it.
I don’t disagree with much of the above, but I’ll go with wars as a major cause of poverty. Wars drain a country of wealth and energy. They cause a major miss-allocation of resources and manpower. Much of the stuff produced has a high rate of obsolescence – it goes boom and no further economic benefit. Wars take human resources from producing goods and services at home to killing people abroad. Many of the young are converted from being contributors to society to being dependant on society. Wars almost always result in debasement of the currency – whether it’s clipping the gold coins or printing of paper money. Many great nations have taken this path – the Romans, Brits, French, Germans, Soviet Union. The outcome is never good.
Dr. C. said: “…Spending money does not cause money to go out of existence. It circulates. When taxpayers spend on wars, who profits?…”.That is true. Those who benefit are the CEO’s and those who work for the military industrial complex. Which is why the MI complex have located war industries in most congressional districts. You can influence a lot of votes that way..But the nation’s resources of capital, labor, and materials are finite. Thus, choices of what to produce comes into play. IE. the guns vs. butter model. Guns: Economic resources are diverted to producing for the war machine and defense, which usually means killing people and destroying infrastructure abroad. Butter: Resources are used at home for production of goods and services for the betterment of people..Are people and the nation better off spending $148 million for one F35 fighter jet to kill people more efficiently and which has a fast obsolescence period, particularly if it ploughs into a mountain in Afghanistan? Or spend $148 million on schools, roads, and bridges, which provide immediate and ongoing economic and human benefits? Does it make more sense to buy gas @ $400 per gallon to power an Abrams tank that gets three gallons to the mile (not three miles per gallon), or spending that money for the care and comfort of it’s sick and elderly?.Economically speaking, finite capital spent at home gives you a bigger wealth kick from the multiplier effect than the same capital spent on the war machine, much of which is spent abroad.
Bottom line – Resources are not unlimited. Choices have to be made according to value systems and economic returns..P.S. Dr. C.: I’m guessing you like to challenge your students.
The F-35, alone, is a failed program actually, and is now projected to cost at, or over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS! Maybe we COULD find some other reductions, and taxes, to solve the “sinkhole” problem?
I’ve noticed that “professional” acaqdemics like to stretch the boundaries of verified science to support their own pet theories. Which is quite the opposite of what “science” means…
Gypsy8 over 12 years ago
It happens when you wage continuous war at a cost of trillions and don’t pay for it. As predictable as the rising and the setting of the sun. Incredible that a war-mongering president and the neocons would be elected not just once, but twice. As Bush tried to say, “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”
Motivemagus over 12 years ago
Cross-posting here from my Jim Morin post:Facts on disparity between rich and poor:The poverty rate in 2010 rose to an embarrassing 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009. “There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009 — the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published,” reported the Census Bureau.“The top 10th of 1 percent takes home about 24 percent of all American wealth.”http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.htmlBut the really scary fact, care of the Wall Street Journal, is that big consumer companies (e.g., P&G) are no longer targeting the middle class that grew them, because it no longer exists. Instead, they are targeting either the rich, or the poor. The Gini Index of income inequality tagged us at 0.468, a 20% increase in income disparity over the last 40 years, which makes us comparable to Mexico and the Philippines. Yes, you got that right. For all the blathering by the right about “redistributing wealth,” the fact is that the wealth has been redistributed — into a very small number of hands, and away from most Americans. SOMETHING needs to be done to raise the wealth of more Americans — and the “job creators” haven’t done it.
Gypsy8 over 12 years ago
I don’t disagree with much of the above, but I’ll go with wars as a major cause of poverty. Wars drain a country of wealth and energy. They cause a major miss-allocation of resources and manpower. Much of the stuff produced has a high rate of obsolescence – it goes boom and no further economic benefit. Wars take human resources from producing goods and services at home to killing people abroad. Many of the young are converted from being contributors to society to being dependant on society. Wars almost always result in debasement of the currency – whether it’s clipping the gold coins or printing of paper money. Many great nations have taken this path – the Romans, Brits, French, Germans, Soviet Union. The outcome is never good.
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
The Daily Show’s take on the B.S. you’re spamming.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 12 years ago
Good point. Republicans can’t get it.
Gypsy8 over 12 years ago
Dr. C. said: “…Spending money does not cause money to go out of existence. It circulates. When taxpayers spend on wars, who profits?…”.That is true. Those who benefit are the CEO’s and those who work for the military industrial complex. Which is why the MI complex have located war industries in most congressional districts. You can influence a lot of votes that way..But the nation’s resources of capital, labor, and materials are finite. Thus, choices of what to produce comes into play. IE. the guns vs. butter model. Guns: Economic resources are diverted to producing for the war machine and defense, which usually means killing people and destroying infrastructure abroad. Butter: Resources are used at home for production of goods and services for the betterment of people..Are people and the nation better off spending $148 million for one F35 fighter jet to kill people more efficiently and which has a fast obsolescence period, particularly if it ploughs into a mountain in Afghanistan? Or spend $148 million on schools, roads, and bridges, which provide immediate and ongoing economic and human benefits? Does it make more sense to buy gas @ $400 per gallon to power an Abrams tank that gets three gallons to the mile (not three miles per gallon), or spending that money for the care and comfort of it’s sick and elderly?.Economically speaking, finite capital spent at home gives you a bigger wealth kick from the multiplier effect than the same capital spent on the war machine, much of which is spent abroad.
Bottom line – Resources are not unlimited. Choices have to be made according to value systems and economic returns..P.S. Dr. C.: I’m guessing you like to challenge your students.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
The F-35, alone, is a failed program actually, and is now projected to cost at, or over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS! Maybe we COULD find some other reductions, and taxes, to solve the “sinkhole” problem?
grayhares01 over 12 years ago
All the people working in the factories making the war machine.
.
Or have you forgotten what REALLY brought us out of the Great Depression?
fallacyside over 12 years ago
^Ha hahahaha! The F-22 can’t be allowed to go supersonic…
fallacyside over 12 years ago
^Especially if it is experientially incorrect and unsupported by real science…
fallacyside over 12 years ago
I’ve noticed that “professional” acaqdemics like to stretch the boundaries of verified science to support their own pet theories. Which is quite the opposite of what “science” means…