How much does a War cost?

Erwin

So after reading this article from digg, I decided to check how much did the US spend on WW2? And I came up with this.
Also, is this for real? If it is then it is terrifing. It is terrifing how humanity preffer kill each other rather than try to help. Yeah, I know there are good people out there but if you put all that on a balance the result is horrifing.
I am not putting how many people have died in all those wars because the life of a human being has no price and looking at the numbers will just make me more sad : (

Omnutia

For a comprehension of how much money that is this is fun to look at.

Apreche

Remember, when something "costs" something, someone gets paid. While the war costs a zillion dollars, that means that people who make stuff make money. This is everything from the obvious gun and helicopter manufacturers to people who make rations and such. As much as our tax dollars are "wasted" a lot of them end up boosting our economy. Of course, in the long run, it's all debt. Not saying it's good, but just removing the illusion that the money somehow disappears with no positive effect.

Classic

I suppose if you're working to find the silver lining, then sure, the money boosts the economy. However, that doesn't mean I'll agree with where the money is being spent.

Bush recently turned down a bill to add a 60 cent tax to cigarettes, all of which would go to funding children's health care. The reasoning simply doesn't make sense. Save lives by deterring smokers from smoking or save lives by funding children's health care? Where is the downside?

Symmetry

Um, I think you're engaging in the Broken Window Fallacy there Apreche. If that money had been spent on anything other than the war it would have boosted the economy just as much, and it would have been spent on things which may or may not have been more valuable than a couple of occupations.

Apreche

Um, I think you're engaging in theBroken Window Fallacythere Apreche. If that money had been spent on anything other than the war it would have boosted the economy just as much, and it would have been spent on things which may or may not have been more valuable than a couple of occupations.

This is true. However, you are assuming the money would have even existed without the war. Sure, we could have taken the war money and spent it on hospitals, education, children, or what have you. However, all that money comes from loans. We are in debt. Every dollar we spend is a loan. If there were no war, would congress have taken out the same amount of money in loans as they took out for the war in order to spend them on nice things? No most likely we would just have lower debt, which is a good thing if you ask me, but oh well.

Andrew

It is terrifing how humanity preffer kill each other rather than try to help. Yeah, I know there are good people out there but if you put all that on a balance the result is horrifing.

Only the dead have seen the end of war.
-Plato

Classic

Good qoute. However, it's that cynicism that has lead me to the conclusion that I'm just not gonna have kids. I'm not entirely sure that it'll be safe for them in the future.

HMTKSteve

You can't really compare the spending on WW2 to the current war. War Bonds were sold (lots of them) to finance the war, that money would not have been in government coffers if not for the war.

Because of advancements in industry and technology we can now support a war (financial/manufacturing) with a much smaller portion of our GDP. I hear a lot of anti-war types saying that the American citizen needs to feel the impact of the war with rationing as it was felt during WW2 but why? If we can fight a war without inconviencing ourselves why should we ration?

In the end you have to look at the cost of the war vs. the cost of not going to war. Which option is cheaper in the long run?

The same choices are made by legal departments every day, is it cheaper to pay off someone who is threatening to sue or should we fight it? If we pay off will more people come out of the woodwork looking for settlements? Like the legal system, war is never as simple as it is made to appear on TV.

Neito

I hear a lot of anti-war types saying that the American citizen needs to feel the impact of the war with rationing as it was felt during WW2 but why? If we can fight a war without inconviencing ourselves why should we ration?

<Devil's Advocate>
Just because we CAN do something without inconveniences doesn't mean we SHOULD. If we could force some of the pro-war types to experience some sort of hardship for sending our men and women over to a volatile, dangerous area, they would be less likely to engage in useless wars.
</Devil's Advocate>

HMTKSteve

Just because we CAN do something without inconveniences doesn't mean we SHOULD.

What kind of drugs are you on?

Let's say you own a shovel for digging holes but you keep getting splinters from it so you go out and buy a pair of gloves. Should you not use the gloves because it allows you to ignore the splinters in the shovel???

If you can do something without inconveniences you should! Unless you are some sort of masochist.

HMTKSteve

Also, isthisfor real? If it is then it is terrifing. It is terrifing how humanity preffer kill each other rather than try to help.

You know what they say, "Build a man a fire, he’ll be a warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."

Apreche

It scares me still that we can put on a crazy war and not have any inconvenience back home. That being said, I think it would be stupid to create artificial inconvenience just to scare people away from the war. However, just because a war, or anything else, doesn't create an inconvenience, that doesn't mean we should go and do it anyway.

HungryJoe

Remember, when something "costs" something, someone gets paid. While the war costs a zillion dollars, that means that people who make stuff make money. This is everything from the obvious gun and helicopter manufacturers to people who make rations and such. As much as our tax dollars are "wasted" a lot of them end up boosting our economy. Of course, in the long run, it's all debt. Not saying it's good, but just removing the illusion that the money somehow disappears with no positive effect.

Making money might be okay, but what about our old friend Blackwater - to whom we've paid more than a billion dollars for "security" turning around and not paying millions in taxes by engaging in fraud?

Also, note the millions wasted by contractors written about in the great article The Great Iraq Swindle.

Someone might be getting paid, but most people consider war profiteering bad form.

It scares me still that we can put on a crazy war and not have any inconvenience back home.

This is the first time in our history that we've had tax cuts in a time of war.

Apreche

Making money might be okay, but what about our old friend Blackwater - to whom we've paid more than a billion dollars for "security" turning around and not payingmillions in taxes by engaging in fraud?

Also, note the millions wasted by contractors written about in the great articleThe Great Iraq Swindle.

Someone might be getting paid, but most people consider war profiteering bad form.

Things like this are the results of a more fundamental problem of general corruption in government. If we don't waste money on corrupt defense contractors, we waste it on corrupt domestic contractors of some sort. I think Larry Lessig has the right idea in that once that fundamental problem is solved, a lot of other problems will go down with it.

HungryJoe

If we don't waste money on corrupt defense contractors, we waste it on corrupt domestic contractors of some sort.

The main difference between those two things are the war profiteers are fraudulently making their money from people being killed and maimed.

HMTKSteve

Making money might be okay, but what about our old friend Blackwater - to whom we've paid more than a billion dollars for "security" turning around and not paying millions in taxes by engaging in fraud?

As long as the employees pay their taxes who cares? The only thing happening here is that the company in question is not playing the part of the tax collector for the government. If more people were paid in full and received a tax bill at the end of the year we would have tax reform.

The problem here is not the lack of withholding (by this company) but the mere fact that the withholding system was ever allowed to exist!

Apreche

If we don't waste money on corrupt defense contractors, we waste it on corrupt domestic contractors of some sort.

The main difference between those two things are the war profiteers are fraudulently making their money from people being killed and maimed.

While yes, it is terrible that they make their money as a result of an activity that involves killing and such. However, it's not as if they make their money directly from killing. More killing does not mean more money from them. They just need the war machine to be on instead of off. They don't actually care if it results in actual war or not. Of course, a war machine that's on usually does mean death.

I think what we need is create some other machine for our country to turn. As we have more and more technology increasing efficiency, and we can provide for the needs of more and more people with fewer and fewer actual laborers, what do we do with all these people we are able to support, but have nothing to do, even if they have skills and desire to use them? In our current economy all we can do is create some sort of artificial machine for these people to crank, and right now that machine is the war machine. Unless we come up with some new economic model which accounts for a world in which labor is in incredibly low demand and incredibly high supply, we will need to do things which create excuses for labor demands. Sadly, right now war is all we've got.

We talk about how it's scary we're not feeling the effects of the war. I think you will see that when the war ends, and the world gets more peaceful, unemployment will rise again. In conjunction with that, people who run businesses will seek to be more efficient, not less efficient, to get through the tough times. Put that along with the debt, and a tax that relies on income, and the falling dollar. There be some rough economic times in the next 10-20 years.

Andrew

I think what we need is create some other machine for our country to turn. As we have more and more technology increasing efficiency, and we can provide for the needs of more and more people with fewer and fewer actual laborers, what do we do with all these people we are able to support, but have nothing to do, even if they have skills and desire to use them? In our current economy all we can do is create some sort of artificial machine for these people to crank, and right now that machine is the war machine. Unless we come up with some new economic model which accounts for a world in which labor is in incredibly low demand and incredibly high supply, we will need to do things which create excuses for labor demands. Sadly, right now war is all we've got.

We should use them to revamp our degrading infrastructure.

Apreche

We should use them to revamp our degrading infrastructure.

Good call, I'm all with you. Except we already have people who are supposed to do that, and those people would not be happy if we displaced them.

Andrew

Good call, I'm all with you. Except we already have people who are supposed to do that, and those people would not be happy if we displaced them.

Well then the only other viable solution I see is improving education on a massive scale in order to limit the size of the labor force. Get more people into high tech jobs. Also, we could start cutting down on the number of goods we import, forcing US manufacturing to step up.

Apreche

Well then the only other viable solution I see is improving education on a massive scale in order to limit the size of the labor force. Get more people into high tech jobs. Also, we could start cutting down on the number of goods we import, forcing US manufacturing to step up.

More high tech people is bad! If there are too many well trained high tech people they will turn everything into a super efficient machine. We'll only need like, one person to push a button once a week to get all the work done. While the world of the Jetsons is awesome, when our labor force can be replaced by drinking birds, we're going to have a problem.

Andrew

More high tech people is bad! If there are too many well trained high tech people they will turn everything into a super efficient machine. We'll only need like, one person to push a button once a week to get all the work done. While the world of the Jetsons is awesome, when our labor force can be replaced by drinking birds, we're going to have a problem.

What about research? We are still very far away from solving any of the major medical issues (i.e Cancer, HIV, and several other degenerative diseases). What about developing techniques in agriculture and biology to help solve this little hunger issue the world has? What about developing plans to colonize the moon or mars? Making space travel not just a luxury, but commonplace? We are still very far off from solving all of our issues technologically.

Apreche

What about research? We are still very far away from solving any of the major medical issues (i.e Cancer, HIV, and several other degenerative diseases). What about developing techniques in agriculture and biology to help solve this little hunger issue the world has? What about developing plans to colonize the moon or mars? Making space travel not just a luxury, but commonplace? We are still very far off from solving all of our issues technologically.

Diminishing returns. Also, no matter what kind of education we have, there are very few people smart enough and willfull enough to take on that kind of work.

Think about it. Imagine if we become so technologically advance that we have replicators on the street that create food, clothes, and other everyday items for people for free. Think Diamond Age. What are most people going to do with their lives? There are no more manufacturing jobs because machines make everything. There are no repairing jobs, because it is easier to just have a machine make a new one. There are still research jobs and such, but only few people are capable, and even fewer positions are available. Wtf will most people do with their lives, and how will anyone move up in society?

Andrew

Diminishing returns. Also, no matter what kind of education we have, there are very few people smart enough and willfull enough to take on that kind of work.

Think about it. Imagine if we become so technologically advance that we have replicators on the street that create food, clothes, and other everyday items for people for free. Think Diamond Age. What are most people going to do with their lives? There are no more manufacturing jobs because machines make everything. There are no repairing jobs, because it is easier to just have a machine make a new one. There are still research jobs and such, but only few people are capable, and even fewer positions are available. Wtf will most people do with their lives, and how will anyone move up in society?

So what, we should hold ourselves back just so people have something to do? Maybe we shouldn't have invented computers, hell, we should have just stayed in the fucking agricultural era, that way everyone would have something to do. Yeah, back then people had to grow their OWN food. No electricity to make things easy. Yeah, screw quality of life, we just need to keep the masses busy; I mean, we know better than they do, don't we? Maybe you will enjoy this essay, Industrial Society and it's Future. Oh, did I mention it's by Ted Kaczynski?

Apreche

So what, we should hold ourselves back just so people have something to do? Maybe we shouldn't have invented computers, hell, we should have just stayed in the fucking agricultural era, that way everyone would have something to do. Yeah, back then people had to grow their OWN food. No electricity to make things easy. Yeah, screw quality of life, we just need to keep the masses busy; I mean, we know better than they do, don't we? Maybe you will enjoy this essay,Industrial Society and it's Future. Oh, did I mention it's by Ted Kaczynski?

I'm with you. We should go for it. All I'm saying is that every current economic system will fail in such a world.

Andrew

I'm with you. We should go for it. All I'm saying is that every current economic system will fail in such a world.

Who knows, maybe the education system will spit out someone with a new economic theory. I think that it will adapt, just as it has in the past. Perhaps we should stop being afraid of the consequences.

Apreche

I'm with you. We should go for it. All I'm saying is that every current economic system will fail in such a world.

Who knows, maybe the education system will spit out someone with a new economic theory. I think that it will adapt, just as it has in the past. Perhaps we should stop being afraid of the consequences.

What if you had a choice. You know that if you try very hard, the fastest you can advance science and technology is rate X. However, you can choose to advance at a rate less than X. You know that if you advance at rate X you will get the maximum return in the least time, but maybe that will cost you twice as much as advancing at a rate of X-1 due to diminishing returns. Also, you know there is a significant risk of starting another dark age and losing everything if you advance at a rate higher than X-3. I'm not saying these things are necessarily true. What I'm saying is that there could be circumstances where you make a calculated decision to hold back.

Thaed

WIP, exactly! Just because we can't conceive of what life will be like does not mean it won't be better. My goodness! If we get nanotech that builds for us or even robot construction workers, we'll have a society like we've never seen before. People will still have jobs, they'll just be jobs we can't imagine (except we'll always have lawyers). Look at Rym and Scott. Their jobs didn't exist 30 years ago. Heck, we might even get to the point where the cost of living is so small that a person could work 10 or 20 hours a week and spend the rest of their time doing whatever. I prefer to be optimistic... unless of course GWB gets us into WWIII before he's gone.

bodtchboy

Good qoute. However, it's that cynicism that has lead me to the conclusion that I'm just not gonna have kids. I'm not entirely sure that it'll be safe for them in the future.

If you don't have kids, then who will be there with your voice of reason in the future?

About the war, I get the feeling even if we pull out, we'll be spending just as much money to fund the country itself. It will be like putting the entire country of Iraq on the US welfare system.

What a mess we're in!

HungryJoe

If we don't waste money on corrupt defense contractors, we waste it on corrupt domestic contractors of some sort. I think Larry Lessig has the right idea in that once that fundamental problem is solved, a lot of other problems will go down with it.

I defy you to find peacetime corruption and waste on this scale:

So far some $6 billion worth of contracts are being investigated for waste and fraud, however slowly, by the Pentagon and the Justice Department. That doesn’t include the unaccounted-for piles of cash, some $9 billion in Iraqi funds, that vanished during L. Paul Bremer’s short but disastrous reign in the Green Zone. . . .

. . . Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele observed in the October Vanity Fair, America has to date “spent twice as much in inflation-adjusted dollars to rebuild Iraq as it did to rebuild Japan — an industrialized country three times Iraq’s size, two of whose cities had been incinerated by atomic bombs.” (And still Iraq lacks reliable electric power.)

Source.

Oh - I know you like blimps. Guess who has a "surveillance blimp"? Blackwater - that's who!