Do you suppose that the profits made from war is greater than the Nat'l War Debt?

Question

Consider the business contracts for clothing, vehicles, weapons, food, eyeglasses, medicine, fuels, bandages, tobacco, pencils, computers, socks, soda pop, candy, dental parts, protheics, rubber gloves, cots, tents, armour, binocculars, wrenches, hammers, etc.

David you & Mr. Chomsky make good points, with which I am in agreement.

It seems to me that the debt must equal the profit. Maybe the Common Citizen can make some money like others. Except that the Common Citizens could set the unprecedented example by paying some portion of the Nat'l Debt.

Now here is an opportunity for the Common Citizen, We the People to finally get ahead of the game, and you refuse based on trifle things like Life, limb, ethics, morals, and ca$h is on the table for the taking.

Answer 1

Yes - Noam Chomsky calls it the " war ecconomy "





War economy is the term used to describe the contingencies undertaken by the modern state to mobilize its economy for war production. Philippe Le Billon describes a war economy as a "system of producing, mobilising and allocating resources to sustain the violence". The war economy can form an economic system termed the "military-industrial complex". Many states increae the degree of planning in their economies during wars; in many cases this extends to rationing, and in some cases to conscription for civil purposes, such as the Women's Land Army and Bevin Boys in the United Kingdom in World War II.

Franklin D. Roosevelt said that if the Axis Powers win, then "we would have to convert ourselves permanently into a militaristic power on the basis of war economy."[1]

In what is known as total war, these economies are often seen as targets by many militaries. The Union blockade during the American Civil War is regarded as one of the first examples of this.

Concerning the side of aggregate demand, this concept has been linked to the concept of "military Keynesianism", in which the government's military budget stabilizes business cycles and fluctuations and/or is used to fight recessions.

On the supply side, it has been observed that wars sometimes have the effect of accelerating progress of technology to such an extent that an economy is greatly strengthened after the war, especially if it has avoided the war-related destruction. This was the case, for example, with the United States in World War I and World War II. Some economists (such as Seymour Melman) argue, however, that the wasteful nature of much of military spending eentually can hurt technological progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_economy

Answer 2

Right now we are having some effects of the war spending in our economy, but the products that are being consumed for war purposes are a "waste" if you consider that money could be spent on long term domestic investing. Even though we are spending money on all these products, we are borrowing a ton of money to pay for it. What this means is interest rates are being driven up, which discourages businesses from borrowing money for private investment. Also our national debt is being financed by foreign countries, most significantly the Chinese... so for decades we'll be paying that money back, plus interest... and that money will not be used to improve our infrastructure, etc. So to answer your question we're having an economic benefit for the short run because of the war, but the long run looks grizzly, because we're not investing domestically.