Were there any pictures?:D

.

Nope. It wouldn't be fair of me to do that...especially for those of you who might happen to be eating at the time.

Thanks for including a link too!

So the guy who forgot how to spell "deficient" is going to call some other guy an idiot. I see.

Let's see, chum; the simplest measure of the validity of what you are pleased to call "American propaganda" is probably the fact that by itself the United States is one fifth of the world economy, year in and year out. In several senses, we work. It's indisputable we work very well. We're the ones to beat, if that's possible.

UG, not trying to sound anti-american or to appear to be hero worshipping AD, but sooner or later some other country will have an economy that'll beat that of the US. It's inevitable. The past is the best way to predict the future, and history demonstrates that all world powers end up not being the world power sooner or later. Maybe that's not a bad thing though. It's a big responsibility having to be the watchdog of the world. ;)

Well put Ali. When my mum was little, the maps and globes in school still had a very imperial flavour to them (despite having already moved into the commonwealth phase of our history). In my grandfather's day, the Empire was a reality, in which he lived. Empires fall and hegemonies fade.

... and that's not including the change of the earth due to receding water levels, volcanoes, and such.

The world power eventually lets their 'big dic' mentalities promote war as if war solves all problems. Greatest nations get that way by avoiding war not justified by a 'smoking gun'. War is one of the most destructive forces to any economy.

Empires don't fall just because Empires fall. Empires fall because new leaders find solutions in war - invent one if necessary. Sometimes identified by how they spell 'deficient'. Deficient as in who suffers first - the poor and homeless. So we ask who elected these leaders. Well we better ask that question because nobody is asking it in Kenya. They don't want to be deficient of fingers and toes. You see, America's poor have it much better. After all, everything is going to be just fine since we stopped slavery. We are a world power because we have better poor people. So maybe that is the real crisis in Kenya. The voters are still slaves in voting booths. But then it seems we've missed the Hiroshima-Nagasaki calculus. Well yes. After all, it's pretty well proven that we did save lives that way, simply enough by the shortening of the war. Shorten the war and we save the Empire.

If we are fighting people who are evil, who cares if we do something wrong? Frankly I do not, and I have trouble believing in the honesty of those who do. I know the above is correct because I read these exact same sentences here. God save the Empire, our glorious leader, and Kenya. Oh. That's right, This is a debate about voters in Kenya. Since a controversy does not exist, then we invent one. After all, evil must be eliminated. (I have no problem following this debate. Do you?)

I do when you take posts out of context. Thats what bugs me most about you - You are seemingly so intelligent then post this stupidity.

tw, I think you'll find most economists would refute that statement. In fact they'd suggest it's entirely on the contrary and that war fuels economy.

Does it? The American economy prospered in the late 60s and early 70s from Nam. As a result, America sold off the world's third largest economy to pay for those post-Nam debts. Sold off a large American owned overseas industrial base. Massive debts - government and trade - were created by that war. Were you trying to get a job in the 1970s when things were so good because of Nam? That *prospering* resulted in recessions, downsizing, stagflation, a lower standard of living, loss of military strength, etc throughout the late 1970s.

Yes, some economists do confuse economic activity with productive growth. They view war as good for the economy just as it did good for pre-1800 France, Britain, and Spain. Same economists also saw sub-prime loans, lower interest rates, and SIV type accounting as only good for 2000 America using the same reasoning. A 'greed is good' mentality. Funny how those economists ignore what happens once the bills come due and all that economic activity has nothing profitable to show. Some economists also believe economic growth can be created by only throwing money at things. Again, they ignore the bigger picture.

If war is so good for an economy, then making a law that requires everyone to replace their front lawns annually would also create productive economic growth. Yes it does according to the principles advoated by some economists who confuse economic activity with growth; who also believe the Fed creates economic growth by only lowering interest rates. A smarter economist knows that war only destroys economic growth just as it also harms empires. Notice how UK spent so much on WWII - and therefore became the premier world power. Must be true if that is what some economists say?

War fuels inflation or stagflation, massive debt, the selling of a country's capital to pay for those debts, long term harm to the population (especially the 25% of veterans who end up homeless), and ... well why did their economic analysis for that year ignore the massive harm and debts that appear on spread sheets many years and a decade later?

Clearly there is no difference between growth and economic activity - according to many economists with the spread sheet mentality.

By ignoring a total picture, then war is good for an economy. Tell that to the major European powers who were so much more prosperous because of and after WWI. Tell that to the Athenians who expected to become wealthy by invading Syracuse. That war meant a demise of the Athenian economy as the major economic power. But according to most of your economists, that war only resulted in a stronger Athenian economy.

The Syracuse war did result in a better Athens because the resulting economic downturn caused Athens to appreciate that wars are destructive to economies AND to listen to nay-saying critics such as Socrates.

Only bean counter types view war as good for economies because those same spread sheets don't measure the resulting long term damage. Economies that prosper most from war are ones who don't fight and who supply the warriors. How many times repeatedly have I disputed that myth from some economists? And still that myth hangs on like a Rush Limbaugh proclamation. Do not confuse economic activity with positive growth.

Did I forget to quote some of your posts in that 'stupidity'? Or should I spell it out for you: the stupidity criticized by Classicman are quotes from others in this thread. Would the word 'plagiarizing' better explain who actually posted the stupidity? Or is Classicman angry because he was not quoted? Is Classicman now mad because he did not understand he was criticizing others; again failed to grasp the context of the gag? Classicman - it required you to read and understand what was posted before making an emotional assumption. I figured you would respond with vindictive criticism and not get the gag. You tend to read only what you want to see – and you did it again.

Only slightly. And I'm overwhelmed - in a positive sense.

I think you were being insulting to the people who posted those remarks. Thats the way it read to me anyway. I'd even go so far as to use post # 132 as evidence. If it was a "gag" tw, it wasn't one of your best - not even close. I didn't think I responded vindictively either, I was more incredulous than anything.

Oh and by the way you were on a hot streak in late summer '05. Very good stuff there.

For what it's worth, as an amateur economist I agree with tw #132.

Some economists call it the broken window fallacy. Some say that if a baker's window is smashed by a hooligan, it's good for the economy, because it means the window has to be replaced, a glazier gets business and money is moving around. But if the money for that window went instead to, say, a new oven -- not only there is the economic activity of buying the oven, but there is then the ability for the baker to bake more things, be more productive... an advance.

Government can do things that increase productivity - like building bridges, schools, and supercolliders. These things continue to "give back" to productivity long after they're paid for.

It can do things that are actually anti-productive, like bridges to nowhere, ineffective programs, etc.

When it spends with war contractors, it's like spending money with the glazier; building a bomb doesn't actually make you more productive, so in one sense, it's economic activity lost. Of course without defense one has nothing, so it's not like money down a rathole.

But if the glazier doesn't have any money to buy the bread that the baker is making in his new oven (vice having his window fixed), how does the baker make more money?
I am not an economy major, or minor, or even taken on class. However, I do believe that war can jump-start the economy. Long term wars are a drain...
Also, there is a large idea that war drives technology. New technologies are funded during war time to find solutions. Often (although certainly not always) these technologies have dual-use, and benefit the population as a whole.
BTW, the 'internet' was developed with DoD $s. Joint venture between universities (who needed the money to develop) and the DoD, who need the invention.

On the suject of the OT, below is an update from a friend in Kenya. No comment from me on the situation except that any conflict where opponents are ranged on tribal or religious lines is incredibly hard to resolve.

I have to laugh. The first part reminds me of going to the grocery store when a hurricane is approaching. I remember as a kid in Houston my mom would have all us kids (theres 8 of us) run around the store with a cart of our own and we'd load it up with anything we could get our hands on. lol

The oven maker can now afford to put a new room on his house and calls the glazier for that. At least, thats the theory. And they can both buy bread.

Any government spending spree can kick-start an economy. It can be on war or roads or schools. With roads and schools, they continue to deliver benefits after the initial spending, but war is unlikely to do that (unless the war annexes some juicy natural resources or something).

War has driven technological advance, it is true. Advances in flight, computers, and antibiotics are clear examples of dual-use* technologies developed during wars.
However, this is not the only way to encourage technological advance.
I'm going to plagiarize my mate's PhD here and contrast DARPA with Japan, Inc.
DARPA takes government money and develops military technology. These sometimes have dual-use spinoffs, but not always. This creates a situation where to stimulate spending on these products, the only really effective way is to go to war. See previous posts about how war spending is wasteful.
Japan, Inc. takes a smaller amount of government money, gets the corporation together and plans a new wave of purely consumer products and the standards and protocols for them. This results in the economy being stimulated by consumer demand, which creates a feedback loop. Oh and doesn't kill so many people.

No! That was Al Gore! ;)



*typed "duel-use" hehehe

Your reasoning also proves that featherbedding makes a wealthier economy. If a product results in higher profits, then we must employ more people to make the same product. That means more workers with money in their pocket.

Whereas featherbedding means more people have incomes (temporarily), it also means productivity decreases. More people to produce same. Decreased productivity means more jobs lost in this industry and in other industries. But that loss of jobs is not obvious when using sound byte logic.

Reality: how do we create more jobs? We make the same product with less people every year. How if we are laying off workers? Because more productivity in any one industry means more new products from that industry, more sales and markets, and other new industries. All create many more productive jobs. Sound byte logic concludes otherwise.

Demonstrated is whether one uses common sense without experience (then assume less workers mean less jobs), OR takes a larger (and more complex) perspective to see the bigger picture. What creates more productive jobs? Doing every job with less people every year. What is the only thing that does that? Innovation.

Do we smash more windows to create a wealthier and more productive economy? Yes, when using Rush Limbaugh logic - common sense without experience and fundamental knowledge. If we suddenly have windows that never need replacement (innovation), then the glazier does new jobs that actually are productive - such as manufacturing windows that don't break. But that means the glazier must also keep getting educated. Why? Innovation means constant change - constant learning - another factor that sound byte logic both ignores and fears.

That change results in more wealth, more jobs, better standards of living, more new products and industries, etc for everyone.

Why does Rush Limbaugh logic disagree? Because Rush Limbaugh logic is based in fear of change - the status quo - no innovation. When the glazier is no longer needed, then resources are now available to develop other innovations. Notice the perspective. Don't view economics from the workers perspective. That would be silly and futile. View the bigger picture - the only thing that matters - the product.

The only way to make a wealthier economy is (and has always been) doing same work with less people, eliminating a need for jobs that maintain the status quo, and create jobs that result in something useful. What is the fundamental principle that underlies all these 'wealth creating' functions? Innovation. Innovation is not created by war or by glaziers replacing existing windows. Both jobs mean more money moving - but fewer products created. That is called inflation. Inflation means more temporary jobs today with a much larger loss of jobs tomorrow. Both jobs also mean more stifled innovation.

What I have posted contradicts sound byte economics because the real world is more complex. Sound byte economics spins wars as good for the economy - using the same spin that also proved Saddam had WMDs.

What "can jump-start the economy"? Wars? Of course not. Innovation does that. Others so little appreciate innovation as to instead credit war. If it takes a war to create innovation, then the economy has a cancerous problem with bean counters stifling innovation.

Why does it take a new gun to invent a disk drive? It does not. But sound byte logic spins such myths for the same reasons that people believe featherbedding creates more wealth. Guns result in spin off technologies such as disk drives only where spin rationalizes it.

Those who can be convinced that more guns mean disk drives are the same mentalities that Rush Limbaugh preaches to. People who know only by using sound byte logic - the 'I feel this is true' logic. The real world is more complex. 'I feel this is true' logic proves that both featherbedding and wars are productive. Neither advances mankind in direct contradiction to hype and spin.

The only thing that creates wealth for that glazier is innovation. The resulting productivity increase means fewer workers make the same product. That means more jobs for everyone. Spin reasoning cannot deal with such complex realities. Spin reasoning therefore proclaims wars and featherbedding as good for the economy.

War can create innovation. Is it the "right" innovation" No. But it can help economies. I agree not the best way. But it got us out of the depression. There was no return to the depression because the GI Bill was created. Thus returning soldiers didn't over-flood the economy with surplus labor and instead went to college.

Second, how does less workers making a product (and thus workers laid off) mean more jobs for everyone? It means less jobs.

The oven maker can now spend same money and labor to develop better ways of making that bread. The resulting productivity in bread means everyone prospers. It means the glazier may have to spend money, work harder to be educated; to operate that new bread making technology.

Notice that the human is not central in economics. The human is required to adapt to change. He must learn - get educated; or be unproductive - an enemy of the economy and punished with less money. But again, what does sound byte logic fear? Innovation - change - constant education - smarter workers - an economy viewed from the perspective of its products rather than its people. That means happier, wealthier, and more prosperous people.

Notice that I have just attacked the logic of extremist liberals and extremist conservatives simultaneously. Why? Because both are enemies of the moderates - the smarter people who can see the larger picture rather than worship sound byte reasoning.

Now let's add the additional facts forgotten by spin. Packet switching was a concept long understood by innovators. A technology stifled by large corporations such as AT&T and IBM whose top management 'knew' it would not work. Fortunately somewhere in DOD, someone saw the innovation worth exploring since their attitude was product oriented - not a bean counter attitude. AT&T and IBM were both becoming dominated by business school graduates who view innovation only in dollars and on spread sheets. A problem that continues so long that the French now own the Bell Labs and IBM computers do not serve communication functions.

BBN was created because of 'innovation fear' created by large companies such as AT&T and IBM. Somehow the frustration suffered by packet switching innovators gets forgotten in a story told by those who want 'positive' spin rather than dirty reality.

DOD only provided monetary resources after corporate America repeatedly denied innovation. Spin forgets that part of the story.

Please don't refer to me or my position as spin. I don't 'spin' things, nor do I appreciate the accusation. Furthermore, I'd appreciate if you stop refering to people that do not have the same world view as you as stupid. I do not refer to those who disagree with me as stupid. It is a common courtesy that mature people extend to... well, other people they meet that haven't offended them. And as far as I can tell, I have done nothing to offend you. I'm not stupid, nor am I a spinner of facts/truth.

And DoD long provided funding, to multiple institutions looking for the best product.

I cannot change your perspective. You must do that. If you choose to view myopically, then you cannot see a bigger picture. Howfully you are only 20 years old. Spend the next ten years watching - asking damning questions while being poltiically incorrect - to appreciate how less workers on every product means more jobs. It requires you to stop taking a micro view that completely ignored innovation and that is preached by extremist conservative or liberals. Take a macro perspective to gain (work for) a whole new micro perspective.

If that last paragraph is confusing, then you have that much more work to do.

To see the bigger picture requires what the military calls a strategic objective. I have discussed this strategic objeictive often. Did you grasp the meaning? Currently you questions imply a Private's perspective. I cannot change your grasp with logic that your perspective cannot appreciate. But that reality is observed repeatedly in history. Countries that constantly do same work with less employees therefore have more jobs and must import more employees. That is what happens. Reasons why become obvious by grasping the bigger picture.

Thanks for the further insults. Obviously, you failed to grasp my initial comment that I am not an economics major, nor minor, nor even taken an economics class.
I do not see things myopically. Nor am I a Private. For that matter, I am a Major. Working in Policy and Strategy. Thankfully, not related to economics. As I previously stated... I have no education in that field. I'd love to be 20 again and unmake all the mistakes in my life... but I am quiet a bit older than that, with several degrees under my belt. Again, none in economics.
And yes I can see the bigger picture, and frankly I can probably see a bigger picture than you ever will. And no, I do not ignore innovation. I just don't take you view that narrows the scope on when and where innovation can occur.

Apparently you are entertaining emotions rather than dealing with the facts. Spin is exactly what is used to promote war as productive to an economy. Spin that is not based in facts or that uses half facts to make a point. You have posted popular urban myths - things justified by spin.

Spin says the Internet was developed by the military because it completely forgets the many others who were first offered the reserach and refused it - IBM and AT&T. Spin forgets to mention how many refused to innovate until finally the DoD came along. There is no way around why that other fact is missing - spin. Whether it is spin or a half fact says zero about aimeecc. aimeecc is does not even exist in (is irrelevant to) a discussion of myths and spin that forgets the frustrations of developing packet switching. aimeecc - did you know a most important part of that story about AT&T and iBM? If not, then you only knew the 'spin' version.

If getting emotional - if you think anything I have posted is insulting - then you don't belong in this discussion. I state bluntly that I am not poltically correct. One must be politically correct for those who entertain their emotions. Everything I have posted goes at politically incorrect and blunt facts. If you see any insult (and none was intended by me) then the insult is totally created in your own perception. Time to reread an only concentrate on principles.

How to read what I posted. The minute you see any insult, then read again to discover how you have completely misinterpreted my post. I make no effort to be 'careful' with anyone's emotions. One need only do that for adults who still need to be appeased. I have no interest in carefully rewording for emotional consideration. There is no insult of anyone in my posts. And they are written without wasting time worrying about emotion. People's emotions are not relevant to adults.

This is economics. The realities of ecomomics will insult those who have confused 'I feel this is true' logic with reality. Its not relevant if those realities make you upset. It's up to you to deal with the facts and to ignore your emotions. No one was insulted by me. That was never my intent. If you saw an insult, you are not reading with the intent of grasping the concepts.

All of which says you are taking everything personally where no human emotions should be found.

Did I say you were a Private? The metaphor was obvious. Apparently you are now so emotional as to convert a metaphor into a personal insult. Nowhere did anything say you are a Private or even in the military. Do you grasp the meaning and intent of a metaphor? Why does a metaphor somehow insult you? Why do you jump to that obviously not true assumption?

Nowhere were you or anyone else insulted. Defined were the concepts. Again, any emotion you see is 100% manufactured in your brain. IS that politically incorrect enough for you? Again it is not an insult of anyone. But if you entertain your emotions, then you miss the fact of where those insults are really being generated. With each post, you are apparently becoming as emotional as to now assume the metaphor about Privates (and Generals) applies to you.

You are a Major? A Major what? Asked because what does it have to do with economics?

What does your age and the mistakes made in your life have any relevance to what I have posted? It does not. But again the fact - somehow you have applied your emotions to text that requires no emotion and 100% politically incorrect logic.

aimeecc - you don't belong in this discussion if you are emotional - if you think even one sentence is personal. Please stop seeing insults were zero insults were posted. To do that, apparently, you must go away and calm down. This is economics where many of your posts are popular myth - promoted by spin - not based in how real world economics works. It means you must dispose of those myths - the spin - and take a whole new and larger perspective.

You have a problem with a most basic economic fact. How to create more jobs and wealthier employees? That means the same product every year is performed by less workers. Difficult to grasp if you do not dispose of popular myths - promoted by spin - that claim otherwise.

aimeecc the best thing you can do for your sanity and your enjoyment of the cellar is add the little muppet to your ignore list in user cp. he'll run out his usual insults and puke up another encyclopedic post (which if you google you'll see has been used dozens of times previously) based mainly on his opinions with cherry picked facts to prove everything he has ever thought is the pure unadulterated reality of life. He'll throw in plenty of barbs about your emotionalism and intellectual capacity and by the end of it you'll be surprised to find out that you have unknowingly had a long standing love affair with GWB and quite possibly may be carrying his secret love child.

so to avoid all that, just put him on ignore. he'll go back to browsing the internet for opportunities to barf an encyclopedia and you can carry on with your life with much less frustration. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will cause him to even question his superiority in any discussion.

lol Thanks for the advice.

lookout is right aimeecc. Everyone else is stupid and emotional and tw is devoid of emotion and is the knower of all things worth knowing. Anything he doesn't know isn't worth knowing and is only known by those who are emotional and stupid.

We've all been through it with him. He's rude and doesn't even seem to realize his manner of address is not socially acceptable.

You can argue with him, but there's really not point. ;)

Show me where it says that anywhere. Show me where aimeecc is insulted or disparaged. It does not exist.

it's your manner of address tw. You don't have the right to tell anyone they 'don't belong in this discussion' regardless of what their qualifications are, or whether or not they're emotional.

Just because you're crippled in that area, doesn't mean everyone else must be in order to have a reasonable discussion.

Historic effects of war on the United States economy
 

I spent some time reading and researching this subject. All in all a worthy exercise. I posted the above as I thought it gave a good description and had multiple links attached.

Take your own advice.

You seem to be the only person around here who has a problem with me Bruce. Why the fuck can't you just fuck right off and leave me the fuck alone? You're an arsehole. Just fuck off.

How's that for some advice from me to you??!

See, that's your problem. You advised aimeecc to take lookout's solution not to argue with tw. I advised you to do the same thing, when you started with tw, and you fly off the handle.
Get help, you need it.

He asked a question and I answered it.

It looks like it's time to put you back on ignore where I should have left you before.

I had hoped you'd see some value in discontinuing with your antagonism but I guess it was foolish to hope you'd ever change.

I don't apologize for suggesting to aimeecc that she withdrawal from the discussion until she can get a less emotional perspective. Why do you see insult in what may be good advice for aimeecc? Or did you assume I meant something else - something that was never intended in my post?

That's my point, is it not? You have assumed insult when the intent was a recommendation that aimeecc might be better off taking a break. The minute you see insult in what I posted, then you better look at yourself as the reason for not reading what was intended. Did you not see what I posted? Did you instead assume what was never intended - an insult?

It's a perfect example, Aliantha, of what I keep saying. If you see insult in what I have posted, then the insult is only within your head. It comes from your own personal biases. For all you know, I may word things intentionally just to test you - to see if you are either tolerant or self centered. Did I say I do that? Nope. But again, I worded it so that one who uses personal bias can jump to conclusions. So again, another example of how wording is so easily misinterpreted when one applies their own personal biases rather than read what was actually posted.

I asked for example of where aimeecc was insulted. You have not provided one. Would you like to try again. (Does this sound like a video game that never ends?)

Let's put this into perspective. Any problem you have with my posts is no where near as vile as my opinion of Aliantha now because he/she posted useless four letter adjectives. You see, Aliantha, I come from people who need not swear - in family, friends, high school, college, or employment. Your net worth is measured by such language. Right now, your net worth is near zero because you need four letter adjectives rather than facts to express yourself.

I never really had a problem with Aretha's Doc or with Barak (from long ago). But I have a problem with someone so illogical as to need four letter adjectives. That is as evil as lying - another sin that should result in immediate excommunication.

Who insulted aimeecc more? Aliantha just did with a post chock full of useless, bandwidth wasting, four letter adjectives. A post so vile that an apology is in order (not that aimeecc should expect one).

I have not read most of them yet. But a few factors appear contradictory - caught my attention. For example, the Spanish American war is cited as America creating foreign investment. However the time period (ie 1914) is when America was financing European military buildups. American after the 1900s had become a major source of international finance. American wealth grew at the expense of European military fiascos. A factor that undermines the author's Spanish American premise.

A second example would be the recession created by the Gulf War in 1991. Well America never really paid for that war. A recession would not be due to expenses from that war. So maybe the war created an export trade downturn? I don't know. But many forget who paid for that war.

And I do appreciate the answer. Not that I agree with it.

Yeah, I'm still going through them too.

Ali, I think you misunderstood bruce. His advice was merely not to argue with tw, not trying to compare you to tw (which I think was how you read it).

I wasn't speaking to your or aimeecc tw so it's got nothing to do with you for one thing. For another, I don't give a rats arse what your opinion of me is, so please feel free not to respond to my posts in future if you find me that distasteful.

That's possible Dana, but you'll all have to excuse me if I'm a bit touchy where he's concerned. The last time I mentioned anything about emotions in a post was to SG where that man basically accused me of being a hypocrite for telling her that she mattered to me.

So there's your explanation.

I'm done with this thread.

But Ali, you started this thread. You can't just abandon it.

Arsonist. Starts a contraversy, then leave the room to let the resulting flame war consume everyone else in the room.

Ali Arson?

This is idiocy.

There is nothing more emotional and illogical than the concept of "bad words". At least there's a rationale when it comes to racial epithets, but there is none when it comes to "four letter adjectives".

i'm thinking about commissioning a study to determine the statistical probability of those statements being found incorrect in that order.

Provide source documents.
Licklider, credited by many as a forefather (one of many) of the internet was always involved w/ DoD.
I could go on and on for about 100 pages, but you first need to provide source documents on why you call it spin "the Internet was developed by the military" and you CLAIM IBM and AT&T initially refused to research it. Who offered it to them to research? Wasn't Licklider. Wasn't Baran, also a forefather of the packet switching concept. Bet your referring to their failure to bid for the ARPA contract - a military contract. Their failure to bid on a military contract to explore the idea of packet switching does not at all validate your idea that its spin. Still goes back to who wanted it developed - the military.

He can't. Give it up.