Oh! What A Lovely War!

[Michael]

Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times: Oh! What A Lovely War!
From HP, Krugman states:

"What we need is actually the financial equivalent of war," he said during a talk at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan. "What actually brought the Great Depression to an end was the enormous public spending program otherwise known as World War II."

In response the WaPo published: No, Mr. Krugman … War is NOT Good for the Economy

As I have repeatedly documented, influential Americans are lobbying for war in order to save the American economy – what is often called “military Keynesianism”.

For the first couple of years that I wrote on this topic, commenters more or less said, “That’s crazy, no one is calling for war to stimulate the economy”.

When allegations surfaced that Rand Corporation was lobbying the Pentagon to start a war to save the economy, Washington Post hack David Broder started promoting war as an economic panacea, andformer Goldman Sachs analyst Charles Nenner and economist Marc Faber started predicting a major war, people started paying more attention.

And well-known economist and writer Paul Krugman has argued for years that World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression.

For example, Krugman writes today in the New York Times:

World War II is the great natural experiment in the effects of large increases in government spending, and as such has always served as an important positive example for those of us who favor an activist approach to a depressed economy.

But Sunday, Krugman went over-the-top by more or less calling for a major war … and manufacturing a false justification for starting one, if need be:

If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better.

There was a Twilight Zone episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time…we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.​

Oh, I don't know, maybe the next time a thread is shut down [and a poster accused of 'misrepresentation' of Herr Krugman and his moronic ideas about the economic upside to murdering of women and children] perhaps dig a bit deeper? Particularly when another thread is quickly opened on the same topic. No one is accusing Krugman of pandering to and seeking to curry favor among the Warmongering politically elite - it's just a coincidence they benefit from his tripe regarding murder being good for the economy. Yes, I'm sure Nobel Prize winning Krugman wouldn't have ever thought that his blathering about the virtues of Murder Inc would NEVER in any way, shape or form influence our perpetual never ending War-State, said, Murder Inc.

OR, maybe the WaPo was just 'misrepresenting' Paul Krugman - the Gods only know WaPo is such a Progressive Liberal rag.

And here's Forbes: No, Paul Krugman, WWII Did Not End The Great Depression

Note: It's a pretty sad day when you see White Knighting for Paul *War Is Good for the Economy* Krugman.

​

 

[kx000]

But of course if we just supported other people's with love and respect and found peace we would be wealthy with truth. If we found our imagination we would be wealthy with the most divine things. For the imagination to work we need a calm peaceful environment. Any war what so ever kills our minds economy. We need mind not savage war.

 

[iceaura]

maybe the next time a thread is shut down [and a poster accused of 'misrepresentation' of Herr Krugman and his moronic ideas about the economic upside to murdering of women and children]

What should that be called, then - lying? Bullying? Slander? Stupidity? Misrepresentation is a nice, polite word for your nonsense regarding Krugman. It gives you the out of claiming you simply aren't able to comprehend the guy, and "misrepresent" him in sincere belief that that's what he said.

In response the WaPo published: No, Mr. Krugman … War is NOT Good for the Economy

And you, for some reason, can't read with any more comprehension than a WaPo corporate shill's deceptions. Why is that?

You even quoted a sample Krugman sentence, in which he does not say that "war is good for the economy" - but you parrot the WaPo take anyway.

And here's Forbes: No, Paul Krugman, WWII Did Not End The Great Depression

The fact that Forbes's audience, men of business, takes such incoherent bs seriously is some of the best evidence available that business success is no indicator of any other ability - certainly not governing, apparently not reading and writing either.

Do they actually believe, say, when not reading some Forbes's con job, that FDR had rescinded the New Deal by 1940?

 

[joepistole]

Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times: Oh! What A Lovely War!
From HP, Krugman states:


In response the WaPo published: No, Mr. Krugman … War is NOT Good for the Economy


Oh, I don't know, maybe the next time a thread is shut down [and a poster accused of 'misrepresentation' of Herr Krugman and his moronic ideas about the economic upside to murdering of women and children] perhaps dig a bit deeper? Particularly when another thread is quickly opened on the same topic. No one is accusing Krugman of pandering to and seeking to curry favor among the Warmongering politically elite - it's just a coincidence they benefit from his tripe regarding murder being good for the economy. Yes, I'm sure Nobel Prize winning Krugman wouldn't have ever thought that his blathering about the virtues of Murder Inc would NEVER in any way, shape or form influence our perpetual never ending War-State, said, Murder Inc.

OR, maybe the WaPo was just 'misrepresenting' Paul Krugman - the Gods only know WaPo is such a Progressive Liberal rag.

And here's Forbes: No, Paul Krugman, WWII Did Not End The Great Depression

Note: It's a pretty sad day when you see White Knighting for Paul *War Is Good for the Economy* Krugman.

​

You are misrepresenting Krugman again. You don't learn Michael.

 

[Michael]

You are misrepresenting Krugman again. You don't learn Michael.

"What actually brought the Great Depression to an end was the enormous public spending program otherwise known as World War II."
-- Paul Krugman

One more time, I want to make sure you don't misunderstand my statement so I'll make it simple and brief. Paul Krugman's position is that a "spending program otherwise known as World War II" is what actually brought about "the end of the Great Depression". This is of course not true, but hey - why get in the way of a psychopath and his shinny Nobel Prize - hell, the committee pretty much doles them out to any idiot now a days.

Simple enough for you?

And guess what the up shot is of Paul Krugmans "Oh! What A Lovely War!" Joe - the other little sociopaths in Government probably think War is a swell idea and we get more War. Why? Because they're f*cking nuts. Those sociopaths are very pleased to hear Nobel Prize Winning Krugman suggesting War IS indeed "Good" for the economy - as they just so happen to be in the business of making Murder Devices.

So, you can take your argument to Paul *Oh! What A Lovely War!* Krugman. He was quite clear the WWII ended the Great Depression and that a New Great War (phony or otherwise) would do the same today. In short, he's f*cking crazy.

Note: IMHO only an out of touch douche bag flippantly purposely titles their article "Oh! What A Lovely War!" knowing that this will be read by military 'personal' all too eager to murder women and children for 'the Good of Society' (for example see: You know, I'm really good at killing people)

 

[Michael]

Deleted double post

 

[Michael]

But of course if we just supported other people's with love and respect and found peace we would be wealthy with truth. If we found our imagination we would be wealthy with the most divine things. For the imagination to work we need a calm peaceful environment. Any war what so ever kills our minds economy. We need mind not savage war.

Exactly correct. What we need to achieve prosperity is the freedom to voluntarily trade value for value with one another. Peacefully. And to stop clinging to the Tribal Monkey *bash person over head* (aka: the State) as the violent means to solve any and every problem in society. All that leads to the Welfare Warfare State (see: Today).

 

[cosmictraveler]

A public works for the bridges, electrical grid, roads and waterways would be a better way to have more people put to work, help the economy and not kill others. The military/industrial complex owns Congress and the President and until they change their voting ways the military will always get what it wants. Very sad indeed.

 

[Yazata]

Oh, I don't know, maybe the next time a thread is shut down [and a poster accused of 'misrepresentation' of Herr Krugman and his moronic ideas about the economic upside to murdering of women and children] perhaps dig a bit deeper?

Was Krugman really suggesting that "murdering women and children" has economic value? Or was he merely noting the extraordinary economic transformative effects of the unprecedented national mobilization that occurred in the United States during the three and a half years that the country was fighting World War II, and wishing that there was some way of bottling that kind of growth-stimulus?

I'm inclined to agree with that general sentiment.

But I'm going to strongly and emphatically reject the conspiracy theory that the United States has somehow created radical Islamism and the current unsettled situation in the world in order to create an 'endless war' so as to pump up the domestic economy.

 

[Yazata]

"What actually brought the Great Depression to an end was the enormous public spending program otherwise known as World War II."
-- Paul Krugman

It certainly transformed the country during three and half short years, after twelve prior years of depression or at best tepid recovery (including no end of huge Keynsian-style government programs during that period).

And guess what the up shot is of Paul Krugmans "Oh! What A Lovely War!" Joe - the other little sociopaths in Government probably think War is a swell idea and we get more War. Why? Because they're f*cking nuts. Those sociopaths are very pleased to hear Nobel Prize Winning Krugman suggesting War IS indeed "Good" for the economy - as they just so happen to be in the business of making Murder Devices.

So you believe that the United States controls everything that happens out there in the rest of the world for its own nefarious domestic purposes and the furtherance of evil capitalism?

That's just the loony-tune left's conspiratorial theory of 'neocolonialism'. It's no less loony-tunes when an ostensible conservative tries to hijack the rhetoric and employ the same line. (Seriously Michael, whatever you think your politics currently is, you seem to me to be thinking in the Marxist manner.)

What you and the radical left both need to realize is that what happens in the rest of the world isn't secretly all our own doing. It isn't all a giant conspiracy. Everything doesn't revolve around us and our favorite economic theories.

In real life, nations, organizations and individuals more typically find themselves reacting to events, often without fully understanding them.

 

[joepistole]

It certainly transformed the country during three and half short years, after twelve prior years of depression or at best tepid recovery (including no end of huge Keynsian-style government programs during that period).



So you believe that the United States controls everything that happens out there in the rest of the world for its own nefarious domestic purposes and the furtherance of evil capitalism?

That's just the loony-tune left's conspiratorial theory of 'neocolonialism'. It's no less loony-tunes when an ostensible conservative tries to hijack the rhetoric and employ the same line. (Seriously Michael, whatever you think your politics currently is, you seem to me to be thinking in the Marxist manner.)

What you and the radical left both need to realize is that what happens in the rest of the world isn't secretly all our own doing. Everything doesn't revolve around us and our favorite economic theories.

Except, Michael is on the radical right. He is preaching the same ideology one can hear daily on right wing media (e.g. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin).

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/11/1208485/-Why-do-conservatives-hate-Keynes

 

[Yazata]

Except, Michael is on the radical right.

That's why I suggested that he stop thinking like a Marxist.

He is preaching the same ideology one can hear daily on right wing media (e.g. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin).

Now you are just expressing your own blue-gang hostility for America's opposing red-gang. (I already know about your left-affiliation, so you don't need to constantly flash your gang-signs.)

In real life, I don't think that the so-called "right wing" adheres to any single ideology, any more than the "left wing" does. What we find instead on both extremes are heterogeneous collections of often single-issue activists with many different agendas, that aren't always even consistent with one another.

That's why we sometimes see very interesting de-facto tactical alliances of disseparate elements from both 'sides'. For example, in recent years we've seen a more isolationist libertarian faction of the so-called "right" (such as Rand Paul and co.) finding common-cause against foreign military adventures with the similarly isolationist anti-war factions of the so-called "left", in opposition to a more internationalist and interventionist 'establishment' of both parties.

 

[kx000]

Exactly correct. What we need to achieve prosperity is the freedom to voluntarily trade value for value with one another. Peacefully. And to stop clinging to the Tribal Monkey *bash person over head* (aka: the State) as the violent means to solve any and every problem in society. All that leads to the Welfare Warfare State (see: Today).

We don't just need peaceful trade. We need peace as our trade. Because of our peace we will have mind. ;]

We can trade all sorts of abstract things and receive them in return like knowledge and our valuable time. The point in life is to be please and be pleased not to fill gas tanks and pay people minimum wage. Material things are nothing without abstracts.

 

[joepistole]

That's why I suggested that he stop thinking like a Marxist.

Marxism is generally regarded in The United States as being left wing, not right wing. Even though both ideologies, as has been pointed out numerous times in Sciforums recently, share common faults and will not work for similar reasons.

Now you are just expressing your own blue-gang hostility for America's opposing red-gang. (I already know about your left-affiliation, so you don't need to constantly flash your gang-signs.)

I guess that explains my registration as an Independent and previous vote and donations to McCain back in 2000 when McCain first sported his “Maverick” moniker or my pro-gun ownership positions or my support for Perot in 1992 before he turned whacko. Truth and reason don’t have gang-signs nor do they need one. Unfortunately, some folks see gang-signs around every corner, just like every child sees boogeymen under their beds or in their closets.

In real life, I don't think that the so-called "right wing" adheres to any single ideology, any more than the "left wing" does. What we find instead on both extremes are heterogeneous collections of often single-issue activists with many different agendas, that aren't always even consistent with one another.

Well if you mean do 100% of all right wingers or left wingers subscribe to 100% of every plank in their respective party platforms, of course not. But most right and most left wingers do hold to a core set of ideas and the degree to which they hold to those ideas is referred to as polarization, something that has become too common place with the advent of conservative media. Are there single issue activists? Of course there are. But I think you are giving them way too much credit. It is a little more complicated than that. The odds are your right wing religious crowd also shares Michael’s aversion to economics and other sciences.
I think the left is far less polarized that the right, largely due to the lack of a liberal entertainment complex. The right wing entertainment complex has done much and continues to do much to polarize the American right wing. Unfortunately, the main stream American right wing has become extreme over the course of the last few decades. Moderate Republicans are unfortunately a minority in the Republican Party – especially after George Junior’s presidency when the party purged itself of RINOs (Republicans in In Name Only). That is one reason why the Republican governor and senator in solid right wing red state Kansas are in jeopardy of losing their jobs to a Democrat and an Independent in a few weeks. One of the first things Governor Brownback did after his election was to purge the Kansas legislature of moderate Republicans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d27ddd8-e163-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html

That's why we sometimes see very interesting de-facto tactical alliances of disseparate elements from both 'sides'. For example, in recent years we've seen a more isolationist libertarian faction of the so-called "right" (such as Rand Paul and co.) finding common-cause against foreign military adventures with the similarly isolationist anti-war factions of the so-called "left", in opposition to a more internationalist and interventionist 'establishment' of both parties.

We haven’t seen much cross party cooperation in recent years. Those “de facto tactical alliances of disparate elements” have been few and far between and have not stood for very long. What we see more often is a constant flip flopping on major issues.
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/ran...rventionist_now_backs_war_in_the_middle_east/
We have smart reasonable men like Romney, McCain, who feel compelled to flip flop on important issues in order to satisfy the polarized Republican base and in doing so lose any credibility they may have had with moderate and mainstream Americans. That is why Republicans have not been able to elect a presidential candidate since George Junior left office.

 

[Yazata]

Truth and reason don’t have gang-signs nor do they need one.

True. That was my point. It would be wonderful if Sciforums participants had the ability to discuss current issues intelligently and dispassionately, without all the needless 'We're the Good Guys, you're the Bad Guys' bullshit.

Unfortunately, some folks see gang-signs around every corner, just like every child sees boogeymen under their beds or in their closets.

You do seem to devote a large proportion of what you post to your hostility to Republicans and conservatives, and to how convinced you are that they suck. That makes me think that you've already chosen your allegiances and that you want everyone else to know how strong and solid they are. I perceive that as displaying your blue gang-colors.

 

[kmguru]

A public works for the bridges, electrical grid, roads and waterways would be a better way to have more people put to work, help the economy and not kill others

That is coming...that includes hell lot of more...like five Trillion Dollar of projects...should keep everybody in good shape as we need a lot of people to get going...The President has the Document as to how to do it...(if I have something to do with it)...We should know in one quarter, how things go...but then again there are Chaos people out there causing issues....we shall see.

 

[iceaura]

One more time, I want to make sure you don't misunderstand my statement so I'll make it simple and brief. Paul Krugman's position is that a "spending program otherwise known as World War II" is what actually brought about "the end of the Great Depression". This is of course not true,

But it is, almost certainly, true. It's the all but inevitable conclusion of one of the best established economic histories of modern industrial capitalism. What 's your objection to it?

In real life, I don't think that the so-called "right wing" adheres to any single ideology, any more than the "left wing" does. What we find instead on both extremes are heterogeneous collections of often single-issue activists with many different agendas, that aren't always even consistent with one another.

There is no "extreme left", or even "solid leftwing", presence in the US public discourse or major media. The unreal presentation of of an imaginary "both extremes" as existing political factions with comparable roles in the public discussion is a Fox & Friends talking point, a canard of the very powerful and influential US political faction we are not allowed to actually name, but are allowed to call "the Right", or the "Tea Party", or even the "Republicans" sometimes.

But I'm going to strongly and emphatically reject the conspiracy theory that the United States has somehow created radical Islamism and the current unsettled situation in the world in order to create an 'endless war' so as to pump up the domestic economy.
- - - -
What you and the radical left both need to realize is that what happens in the rest of the world isn't secretly all our own doing. It isn't all a giant conspiracy. Everything doesn't revolve around us and our favorite economic theories.

If you agreed with the common leftwing ( and Marxist, although not unique to Marxism) analytical approach - that the conspiracies and conspirers of this world are as much run by events and realities as they are running them - you would immediately notice that the major contributions to the rise of radical Islamist violence made by US neocolonialist behavior are not obviated by the fact that things haven't gone exactly according to neocolonialist plan.

Neither are the major and centrally influential ideological campaigns and political operations undertaken to establish a public perception of ongoing threat, with a consequent ongoing endowment of wealth and essentially permanent bestowment of power upon the US military/industrial complex, made not to have happened by the fact that they didn't all work out as the campaigners and operators hoped or presumed.

That endless war and consequent endless military/industrial domination of US governmental affairs was sought, worked for, conspired concerning, and otherwise deliberately arranged; that it is currently being vigorously defended, the gains made by it entrenched and its critics attacked by means ordinary and vicious, legal and illegal; these observations are not dismissed by noticing that the seekers and conspirers and successful beneficiaries of endless war are not supremely competent and uncannily foresighted and masterfully aware of what they are about. Yes things blow up on them, they get bit in the ass by their own greed and folly - but that doesn't mean they were not up to no good in the first place.

 

[Michael]

Was Krugman really suggesting that "murdering women and children" has economic value? Or was he merely noting the extraordinary economic transformative effects of the unprecedented national mobilization that occurred in the United States during the three and a half years that the country was fighting World War II, and wishing that there was some way of bottling that kind of growth-stimulus?

I'm inclined to agree with that general sentiment.

But I'm going to strongly and emphatically reject the conspiracy theory that the United States has somehow created radical Islamism and the current unsettled situation in the world in order to create an 'endless war' so as to pump up the domestic economy.

War inevitably produces 'collateral damage' (aka: the murder of innocent children and often their innocent mothers). WWII did not end the Great Depression.

I agree, the State did not 'purposely' create 'radical' Islam - however, it has done a good job of convincing people of "Islamic Terrorism". Never mind you're likely to killed by a Fundamental Christian and much more likely to be gunned down by a gang-banger in one of the State's Public Housing/Welfare Farms.

I'd suggest this was more akin opportunistic graft than outright conspiracy. However, it is a fact that the US Government did purposely lie to the American electorate regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and used this as a pretense to go to war against the Vietnamese. This lead to the murder, rape, abuse and chemical-induced cancer of millions and millions of innocent Vietnamese. It was also very very profitable for the military industrial complex. It is a fact that the US Government did purposely lie to the American electorate regarding the WMD in Iraq and lied when they suggested the Iraqi government was importing uranium from Africa. They State used this as a pretense to go to war against Iraq. This lead to the murder, rape, abuse and chemical-induced cancer of unknown numbers of innocent women and children. Is that a 'conspiracy'? I don't think so. Most Americans know full well the State is full of shit. But they don't care. Murdering women and children makes for good 6:00 O'clock news and gives them a warm satisfied blood lust knowing giving them 'pay back'.

According to Paul Krugman's theory, the murders of these Iraqi women and children will help out with our economy. But, this is a lie. All it does is damage our economy. The so-called 'stimulus' diverts goods and services (needed for schools, bridges, research and medicine) and diverts it into making murder devices. Therefor, it's more correct to say this: War is good for a particular segment of the economy - the one that makes the devices we use to murder innocent women and children.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

That may or may not be happening, but it isn't entirely implausible and it's certainly worthy of discussion.

Two brief points:

(1) Michael misrepresented his source, claiming it said one thing when it actually said something else.

(2) His revival of the thread is no more credible, since he's already provided a source that undermines his basic claim.​

Oh, and a third point ....

• • •​

In response the WaPo published: No, Mr. Krugman ... War is NOT Good for the Economy

And that would be another misrepresentation.

WashingtonsBlog.com is not the Washington Post.

And here's Forbes: No, Paul Krugman, WWII Did Not End The Great Depression

Well, at least you got the right website and publication this time. But Bill Flax is the author of a reader blog. He's an independent writer pushing a political agenda. Furthermore, as the blog is clearly and specifically disclaimed by Forbes as representing the contributors' own opinions—

—it would seem inappropriate to attribute Mr. Flax's opinion to the publication.

Once again, you have misrepresented your sources.

 

[iceaura]

- - - WWII did not end the Great Depression
- - - -
According to Paul Krugman's theory, the murders of these Iraqi women and children will help out with our economy.

Krugman said nothing like that. WWII did end the Great Depression. You continue to go far out of your way to repeat demonstrated falsehood, as if you had something to gain by mere repetition - that is true of calculating propagandists and corporate marketers, and few others.