Kenya in Crisis

[aimeecc]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

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.

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.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

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.

[aimeecc]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

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.

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.

[lookout123]

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.

[aimeecc]

lol Thanks for the advice.

[Aliantha]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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.

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

[Aliantha]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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.

Take your own advice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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.

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?)

[classicman]

In order to get a proper perspective, let us first view an article
that provides us with an overview of the effects of war on a nations
economy and also pick up some answers to our questions. It mentions
that the bad effects of war could be seen in the vast amounts of
expenditure, disruption to trade, and loss of human and material
capital plus inflationary pressures.

Also taking into account, wars (if you win) can also provide positive
effects to an economy. It can stimulate economic activity by creating
jobs, improve current technology for future commercial benefit and
increase capacity utilization.

Such effects can have different consequences for a superpower economy
like the United States.

“At certain historical times and places, war can stimulate a national
economy in the short term. During slack economic times, such as the
Great Depression of the 1930s, military spending and war mobilization
can increase capacity utilization, reduce unemployment (through
conscription), and generally induce patriotic citizens to work harder
for less compensation.”

“In the 1990s, the GPS navigation system, created for U.S. military
use, found wide commercial use. Although these war-related innovations
had positive economic effects, it is unclear whether the same money
spent in civilian sectors might have produced even greater
innovation.”

“In recent centuries, the largest great-power wars have been won by
ocean-going, trading nations whose economic style differs sharply from
that of land-based empires. Rather than administer conquered
territories, these "hegemons" allow nations to control their own
economies and to trade fairly freely with each other. This free trade
ultimately benefitted hegemons as advanced producers who sought
worldwide export markets. The Netherlands after the Thirty Years' War
(1648), Britain after the Napoleonic Wars (1815), and the United
States after the World Wars (1945) each enjoyed predominance in world
trade. By virtue of superior naval military power, each of these great
powers shaped (and to some extent enforced) the rules and norms for
the international economy. For example, the international financial
institutions of the Bretton Woods system grew out of U.S. predominance
after World War II.”

“War and Economic History”
Joshua S. Goldstein
http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgeconhi.htm

Since our focus is the United States, it would be an injustice to the
discussion if we do not include citations that include the latter part
of the 19th century wherein the US actually started becoming a
military and economic power. In the article “Expanding Empire”, it
provides an extensive commentary on how the US uses war for economic
expansion that eventually benefited the American economy in the long
term.

“The first real foreign war of the United States—the Spanish American
War—took place almost simultaneously with the first real expansion in
U.S. foreign investment. And that is the real secret of understanding
that war, as it is of understanding all subsequent U.S. wars.”

“It was precisely in the 1890s that investment abroad—that is, the
export of U.S. capital—took place on any substantial scale. And in
1897, just before the Spanish-American War, there were still "only"
700 million U.S. dollars invested abroad. By 1914, the foreign
holdings had leaped to $3.5 billion—five times as much. Without the
war, this could not have happened.”
“The war with Spain was motivated by the desire to exploit Cuba,
Puerto Rico, the rest of Latin America and the Philippines, etc., and
to get complete control of the Caribbean so as to facilitate the U.S.
control of the contemplated Panama Canal and open up easier access to
business expansion in Asia. It was a question of economic expansion
and pretty much understood and openly explained as such at the time.”

This extensive document stretches to 12 web pages and mainly states
its case that the US involvement in the Philippines, Korean and
Vietnam wars were all for the sake of economic expansion. It shows
that different business segments from the auto to the retail
industries benefited from such wars.

“Expanding Empire”
http://www.workers.org/cm/empire1.html

It is however in the argument for economic stimulation that observers
view as the more acceptable instigators when the US government goes to
war. This article form the Business Week website shows how the US has
been becoming more efficient in the use of its resources during times
of war which leads to greater profit.

“If we consider World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, we have examples of
large, medium, and small wars. In World War II, peak military spending
in 1944 was 60% to 70% of prewar gross domestic product. During the
Korean War, spending peaked at around 11% of GDP in 1952, and during
the Vietnam War, it peaked at about 2% of GDP in 1968.”

“The economic effect of the Gulf War is harder to isolate because
military spending rose by only about 0.3% of GDP. The economy was in a
recession in 1990, before the war started in January, 1991. Economic
growth resumed by the second quarter of 1991 but remained low until
1992. The analysis from the other three wars suggests that little of
the recovery stemmed from the Gulf War.”

“Not all aspects of wars are favorable to economic activity, of
course. Consumers' perceived increased risk of flying, for example,
lowers the demand for air travel, and the perceived higher risk of
terrorism likely reduces business investment. However, negative
effects were also present in previous wars, including worries about
Japanese invasion of the U.S. mainland during World War II and about
Soviet missiles during the cold war. Nevertheless, the net effects of
previous wars on U.S. GDP turned out to be positive.”

“Why the War against Terror Will Boost the Economy”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...5/b3756038.htm

Now let us see the perspectives of those from a different side and
view that such arguments are impractical and do not resemble the
reality of the economic consequences of war.

Such is the dilemma of the US should it push for a war against Iraq.

“Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that
peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991
demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy. That
conflict contributed mightily to the onset of the recession of 1991
(which was probably the key factor in denying the first President Bush
re-election in 1992).”

“Whichever way one looks at it, the economic effects of war with Iraq
will not be good. Markets loathe uncertainty and volatility. War, and
anticipation of war, bring both. We should be prepared for them.”

“The myth of the war economy “
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4588495,00.html

“'In previous periods when the U.S. has been involved in war, what you
typically end up with is an artificially propped up economy followed
by a decline in economic activity when the war is over,’ said
economist Patty Silverstein of Littleton-based Development Research
Partners.”

“'War is a wonderfully inflationary pressure on the economy,’ added
Tom Clark, director of the Jefferson Economic Council in Jefferson
County. ‘It's a wonderfully nonproductive use of assets, usually
followed by a period of hyper-inflation.’”

“Iraq war could hurt local economy”
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/st...21/story1.html

I also found other articles that may help you since these ones are
additional discussions on the merits and negative effects of the
participation of the US in a war.

“Relationship Between 20th Century Money and 20th Century Wars”
http://heily.com/mark/wizards/wizards-html/node26.html

“The Economics of War”
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-04-02.html

“Interventionism 101 - New US Military Bases: Side Effects or Causes
of War?”
http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1808

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

... a long list of economic articles ...

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.