Do you think US is running its economy of War profit, just as Rome did. This economy method has no long term success?

[Kelly6]

All wars currently around the world are because US needs natural resources.

Updates

10 mo

Many started talking about Iraq war oil fields. So here is a link. But I don’t want to reply to everyone, everyone can believe as they wish to.

fpa.org/iraqs-oil-leases-and-the-world-market/

[WindAtMyBack]

No, not even close. The military is a small part of the economy. If the military was completely eliminated the economy would barely notice. Sure, it would notice, but it wouldn't be huge, and would be absorbed pretty quickly.

Also consider the way the military budget is done. It includes a LOT of stuff that is not military, or only nominally military. For example the US military is probably the biggest and best education institution in the US, if not the world. The Army Corp of Engineers is the biggest producer of hydro-electric power. Also, a huge part of the military budget is the retirement system. In the rest of the government, retirement is a separate budget item. But with military it's part of the military budget, making the military budget appear proportionally larger compared to other programs.

The big point is that you have to be careful to not compare apples to oranges. Not only within the US budget, but also compared to other budgets around the world, which may be done very differently.

[msc545]

1 trillion + $ per year is NOT "a small part of the economy".

[UpaRupa]

1 tillion is a small part of the economy its a big part of the budget not the same thing. Single companies are larger then 1 trillion

[WindAtMyBack]

@msc545

Yes it is. Do you know how big the US economy is?

For decades I've been hearing about the "military industrial complex", always in the contest that it somehow controls the economy and government. Whenever I hear anyone bring it up, I write it off. It's simply not true. I won't claim it's COMPLETELY insignificant, but it's pretty small.

Sure, a few defense companies might make a profit from war, but overall the large majority of businesses hate war. War is just not good for business.

[msc545]

Prove it. Just asserting it without proof is insufficient.

[UpaRupa]

@msc545 if google size of us economy you will find 29 trillion and every source you could want. 1 trillion is ~3.5% i would say that's a small part maybe you want to argue its large. I suspect your thinking government spending which is ~12% of budget and ~46% of discretionary.

[msc545]

Fair enough. Let's call it a large part of government spending. Does that make you feel better? I admit that this is more accurate relative to a depiction of the problem.

[UpaRupa]

It's just what the question is asking, we probably agree that it is a big problem that government spending is as high here as it is. Money could be save or at least be put to better use.

[msc545]

War is GREAT for business! Defense contractors and arms manufacturers often see surges in profits during wartime due to increased government spending on weapons, equipment, and logistics.

Industries like construction, infrastructure, and security services may also benefit when rebuilding or heightened security is needed.

Wartime production can reduce unemployment, as governments mobilize large workforces.

Prove otherwise if you really think I am wrong.

[WindAtMyBack]

@msc545
War is good for defense contractors. But defense contractors are a small part of the economy. Why is that so difficult to understand and accept? The guy who said 3.5% is actually a little high. It's less than 3%.

Look at the original question. It asks if the US is running a war economy. Do you really want to claim less than 3% of the economy is what's running the economy?

The defense industry isn't even in the top ten.

Or look at the holdings of index funds. If you look at an S&P index fund for example you won't find ANY defense contractors in the top 25 holdings.

Also keep in mind that the VAST majority of money spent on defense is paying for labor.
Also keep in mind that a large part of the military budget isn't truly military.

"Industries like construction..."
Come on, this is trivial.

"Wartime production can reduce unemployment, as governments mobilize large workforces."
When was the last time that happened? 80 years ago?
That's completely irrelevant to the question.

You just can't get around the fact that the military is a small part of the US economy.

[msc545]

Ok you are not wrong. However, it is a very large part of government spending

[AviatorTom]

The Military Industrial Complex has been a significant portion of the US economy since World War II. So long as the United States continues its self-proclaimed role as world peace keeper, and supports those countries involved in conflicts, it will continue to be a significant part of the US economy. There is no end in sight.

[Kelly6]

@AviatorTom

There is no end in sight? Elaborate

[AviatorTom]

@Kelly6 It's gonna be a while until another country becomes the world's peace keeper. Maybe China, but that's decades away. And there will always be conflicts somewhere in the world, as there have been for decades, fights over water rights, other resources, or just about wanting power.

[UpaRupa]

what is the military industrial complex to you, defense spending makes up less the 5% of the economy. its a huge part or government spending and in my view a problem but not for the larger economy. lockheed martin is "only" 71 billion a year revenue to walmart's 650 billion.

[juleyboo74]

Percentage of GDP says no, not even close. Russia is right now. You could consider half of the Chinese economy is geared towards the military or dual use tech and war planning. It's funny the reputation America has relative to the actual truth - most US media is lies or propaganda, and its not much better elsewhere I suppose.

When the US is no longer the world's peace keeper it's going to get REAL bad for a lot of countries and people...

[katiesmuff]

Exactly what WAR did the United States ever START? With the exception of this idiot president we currently have to has tried to bribe Ukraine for some precious metals for our help or his Nazi stance on conquering Canada and Iceland the thinking a a desionial clown.

[msc545]

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and those are only the ones that we are mostly familiar with. There are plenty of others. You wanted the names of the wars that the US started? There are a lot more than that, but I don't feel like arguing the point with you past this.

[katiesmuff]

@msc545 We didn't draw first blood on any of your ridiculous choices

[msc545]

How do you know that? Were you there or do you just believe the lies? The government tells you. The government actually admitted that they faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to start the war in Vietnam. If the government is capable of doing that sort of thing and as you put it drawing first blood, do you think they haven't done it at other times? Are you seriously this naive?

[katiesmuff]

@msc545 Your too fucking stupid to even argue with!

[worldscolide]

Considering the percentage of our GDP that comes from military and war (less than 10%) I'd have to disagree. Most of our GDP comes from exports and from tech, and from tourism.

[Kelly6]

@worldscolide
The most easy example is Iraq war, which was done just to take I’ve its oil fields.
Those oil fields are $$$$

[worldscolide]

Oh I think it's stupidity that we are involved in pointless wars.. I just disagree that that is our biggest source of income

[Bricealan]

@Kelly6 Kelly, when did we nationalize Iran's oil fields?

[Kelly6]

@Bricealan Iraq , not Iran

[Bricealan]

@Kelly6 We did not nationalize Iraq's oil fields either... We put out the fires that Hussein started and billion of barrels of oil were lost before they could be capped

[Kelley1]

@Bricealan Clearly, it is best not to reply to people who ignore and lie about the facts.

[UpaRupa]

we never really got oil from iraq, it was more for energy security. iraq keep all the oil and companies like bp sold it on to the open market on iraqs behalf. neocons were in power at the time they love endless pointless wars even if its not good for the us economy or peaple (world police mentality).

[UpaRupa]

@Bricealan yeap never did, its in iraqs constitution that they own all the oil.

[Kelly6]

@Bricealan US gave 3 major Iraq oil fields to 3 countries back then for 10yrs.
US- Exxon
UK- Shell
China- china perto

China was in war only by financially.
Now after 10yrs past, fields were auctioned to other companies, which I will do research to find about

[UpaRupa]

They did not give them away Iraq contracted with those companies to extract the oil, it was still their oil. Those are just where the companies are hq'ed probably a 10 year contract which was re-bid. Could be wrong, but I don't think so seems fairly clear. You can argue it wasn't a good deal but that s different then giving it away.

[Kelly6]

@UpaRupa you almost said was correct but I don’t like that other companies jumped into their oil fields.
Iraq was extracting its own oil, don’t think they can’t.
Telling others to extract oil and share some % is totally stealing money.
But what can I say.

[genericname85]

growth based capitalism will always fail, cause there's no infinite growth since the world and it's ressources are finite. so yeah. the thing is: that system will fail. it doesn't matter who runs it. it's bound to fail and everyone knows that.

[Kelley1]

Israel owns Congress and the president. Many very rich and powerful corporations profit from war. For longer than I can remember, according to mainstream media, Russia is the enemy. However, making war on Russia is dangerous.

[Avicenna]

Your anti-Semitic conspiracy theory has no basis in fact.

[Kelley1]

@Avicenna Just like when they deny their genocide, Jews lie, and you support their lies.

[Avicenna]

You’re one sick Nazi

[UpaRupa]

Russias only been the "enemy" for past 10 years or so mostly due to mainstream media in the us pushing it.(they no doubt are a concern now) Relations between the us Europe and Russia where headed in the right direction prior to. corporations that profit from war are small potatoes compared to just walmart.

[Bricealan]

@Kelly6 Russia invaded Ukraine because the U. S. needs natural resources?

Hamas attacked Israel because the U. S. needs natural resources?

What natural resources? Coal? Oil? ... Biden shut down the Keystone Pipeline project. We have inland oil, inland coal, offshore oil,

What war did we start to get natural resources?

[GdanskDawson]

@Bricealan The Iraq war.

[Avicenna]

@GdanskDawson: and who controls Iraq‘s oil fields today?

[Kelly6]

@Bricealan
No, that’s not what I ment

[Avicenna]

Actually, the single biggest threat to the future of the US is Medicare‘s hundreds to trillions in unfunded liabilities.
The interest on the national debt exceeds military spending, so clearly all blame can’t fall on the military-industrial complex.

[UpaRupa]

Yeap medicare and military spending will have to be cut no other way its a math problem. only question is when will the country wake up to that fact, at this point no good fix only bad options left.

[Avicenna]

@UpaRupa: The financial markets will force change on us- and it won’t be pretty

[OneViewpoint]

Directly or indirectly yeah, that statement has basically been true since the 1950's when the US industrial economy really took off after WWII. Very few wars since then have been existential conflicts fought over some moral principle. It's always about ownership of resources. Or access to resources. Or preventing someone else's access to resources. And the US has basically made war an industry that drives the US economy as well as the fundamental foundation of government policy.

[RavVid]

I wouldn't agree with that because it is quite simple to buy natural resources. In the empire model it wasn't but that ceased after WW2 finished.

Currently China is restricting rare earths but it is only because they sold so cheaply it was uneconomic for other countries to produce. If US and Europe are willing to pay economic prices there are plenty of countries with deposits to produce RE metals.

[DrPepper12]

Not exactly the same as the Roman war prophet where was built on conquest but absolutely that the defense industry became so vital to national economic interests that any reduction of the military budget would have extreme effects on the domestic economy so that it became untenable.

[msc545]

Sure it does. The US keeps creating and starting wars to create markets for its war contractors.

[Kelly6]

@msc545
How come only you understood question well and smart enough to know the truth. 🙂

[msc545]

I'm not sure if your comment is sarcastic or not but I think that what I said is the truth. It's not like it takes a tremendous amount of thinking to figure this out.

[electromagnetic]

Trump is a business man, not a politician. I feel like once people truly understand this, they’ll see trump exactly as that and why so many things that could go wrong are going wrong.

[Gwendoline]

Rome's military industrial complex is the reason Rome conquered so much and lasted nearly 2000 years and was able to provide a welfare system for its citizens.

[mysteriousNicholas]

Kelly6 this answer has me squeezing tits in joyful admiration that someone realises that "potentially, the USA is just a modern day Rome" lol of yesteryear

[molonski2]

More frightening is a world where USA is completely involved , China would fill that role.

It's 10 % of GDP , so not insignificant.

[zagor]

Israel attacked Gaza because of US demand for resources? Ukraine was invaded for same? Thailand and Cambodia feuded over same? ISIS affiliates are killing people in Africa for that?

I think your education is somewhat lacking.

[UpaRupa]

I don't think the US is running its economy around war profit, it only makes up ~5% of the economy rounded up. I don't think its a good use of resources but that doesn't mean it can't be sustained.

[es20490446e]

It's not due to natural resources, but geopolitics.

Aka they don't want certain countries to get too much influence over others.

[ProbablyClueless]

We've certainly become that way since WW2.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Tell that to Trumpbots !!!

[Avicenna]

Showing once again, you’ll believe anything as long as it confirms your prejudices

[beefcakebradybatson]

@Avicenna The 25th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution limits Presidents to two terms and has been in effect since 1967, but as a Trump groupie, you've surrendered your soul and mind to be a lemming.

[Avicenna]

I know you’re not very smart, but even you should notice I’ve never said he could or should run for a third term.

[Avicenna]

And you got the year wrong

[blackeagle007]

@Avicenna No troll, you got it wrong. You always do

[Avicenna]

@blackeagle007: Thank you for showing once again that you're an idiot who knows absolutely nothing- your far left colleague was referring to the 22nd Amendment, which took effect in 1951. Even someone as dumb as you has to admit that 1951 and 1967 are not the same year.

[beefcakebradybatson]

@Avicenna Nineteen fifty-one was two years before I was born, and I was fourteen July 6,1967.

[blackeagle007]

@Avicenna lol you so treat the internet like it’s serious business with your 6 paragraph hit backs. So much like idiot trump, loser

[Pohjolan]

Nope and no.

[HДLILБΞУ]

I have no idea..