Welcome to the TTP community
Be apart of something great, join today!
War in, on and over Iraq
- Thread starter knvb
- Start date
Thanks Keeper.
Steve: it hasn't. The US economy has been in a rut ever since 911. Yes, it has as much to do with the market crash earlier that year, but recovery from a market correction is a far easier task than recovery from overspending on defense.
I rep four US manufacturers. All of them have been significantly down since 911, and hit bottom last summer. Both of my large principles experienced drops in manufacturing and sales of just over 25% after highs in fiscal 2001 (which ended August 2001)- that's huge. Both companies had massive lay-offs. These aren't small players, either. Both companies are world leaders in their sectors.
Why did they experience such a massive drop in business? Because both companies rely on capital projects and OEM business for about 3/4 of sales. Aftermarket (replacement parts) carried both companies during the downturn. All this while many of our competitors closed their doors.
Yes, sales to military accounts increased, but that doesn't come close to making up for the big four auto manufacturers cutting back because on market slowdown.
Only recently have we noticed an upturn, but it has only been common amongst the Canadian Reps, who are thriving on a bombing US dollar that makes our products much cheaper for Canadian buyers.
There is no way to justify a war these days by saying "it will help the economy". The only reason it helped way back in WWI & WWII was because the rest of Europe was in buried in rubble, while we weren't.
Steve: it hasn't. The US economy has been in a rut ever since 911. Yes, it has as much to do with the market crash earlier that year, but recovery from a market correction is a far easier task than recovery from overspending on defense.
I rep four US manufacturers. All of them have been significantly down since 911, and hit bottom last summer. Both of my large principles experienced drops in manufacturing and sales of just over 25% after highs in fiscal 2001 (which ended August 2001)- that's huge. Both companies had massive lay-offs. These aren't small players, either. Both companies are world leaders in their sectors.
Why did they experience such a massive drop in business? Because both companies rely on capital projects and OEM business for about 3/4 of sales. Aftermarket (replacement parts) carried both companies during the downturn. All this while many of our competitors closed their doors.
Yes, sales to military accounts increased, but that doesn't come close to making up for the big four auto manufacturers cutting back because on market slowdown.
Only recently have we noticed an upturn, but it has only been common amongst the Canadian Reps, who are thriving on a bombing US dollar that makes our products much cheaper for Canadian buyers.
There is no way to justify a war these days by saying "it will help the economy". The only reason it helped way back in WWI & WWII was because the rest of Europe was in buried in rubble, while we weren't.
Kurds capture...
Not likely. If the Kurds caught Saddam they would have killed him. Watching a report of a Kurdish town north of Bagdad, chemical agents were dropped on about a decade ago. Many deaths and disfiguring injuries. An eye for an eye would reign in this area I believe.
Not likely. If the Kurds caught Saddam they would have killed him. Watching a report of a Kurdish town north of Bagdad, chemical agents were dropped on about a decade ago. Many deaths and disfiguring injuries. An eye for an eye would reign in this area I believe.
the manager
New Member
you have a point gurps. and this point is supported well by one look at "North American Cultural values". within the last few decades, NA culture has shifted away from valuing family, community, and social care and moved towards a predominatly economic ethos. this means that today it is much harder to raise a family with multiple childres as most households are forced to have a doubble income. "Economics" and "prosperity" become the God's of society, at the expense of what matters more...people. a good read on the subject is Thomas L. Friedman's book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (understanding globalization)
quite naturally, this "economic" motivation and value, (which is quite sad as everything, including humans, becomes a mere comodity) playes itself out on a global scale in the West's motivations. thus, the sacrafice of inocent people is justified as prosperity is the predominant value by which the West acts.
I agree that the "liberation" sell is merely a smoke screen, or secondary to the economic benefit that may be gained.
manager
The problem is, I can't see that under many examples where the military spending actually creates enough "gadgets" to justify the costs- even with the spin-offs (rebuilding Iraq, futures on oil extraction, etc.). When Ford spends x-billion dollars, it is because they know their goods will then be bought for x+ billion dollars, and in turn, those goods will be sold for x++ billion. With the military, there is only one buyer before the goods are used.
Now, consider if the US put that money into domestic capital investment (roads, schools, bridges, housing, etc...), that money will be spent investing in areas to help make the economy DIRECTLY more productive, instead of INDIRECTLY, as is the case w/ military spending.
Unless you can show me how, by spending all the money in military investment will actually reap greater returns to the US economy, it's pretty obvious that military investment is a loss leader.
Dude,
Although it would be a long research paper to prove out the point that military spending can improve the economy, here is my take.
1. World War Two, if I am correct, though it may have been WW1, led the states out of the great recession though the creation of jobs for the war. The states has never looked back. What military spending does is allow for contracts to be purchased to create military equipment, which results in huge military companies buying items such as steel, coal, or whatever to produce the new equipment. This leads to further jobs, and can be considered a form of investment. The income generated by these firms through corporate and personal tax is huge. Now, you are right in saying that why doen't the government just invest in roads, schools, etc. This is actually a form of indirect investment, not direct. Things such as roads and schols are very long term investments, and society does not reap the benefits untill kids finish university, or the flow of goods increases due to new roads. Over the long run, these are better investments. However, in the short term, which most politicans look at, a war can help improve the economy, in my opinion from what I learned in University. Once again, I may be wrong. Further, The US has alreadys stated that the cost of the war will be recovered in part by Iragi Oil, in other words, they will be stealing a resource that belong to Iraq, as a repayment for "liberating the country." By being able to purchase the oil at a fraction of the cost it costs the US to purchase, the cost of the war comes down greatly. Sounds like a good investment to me.
In all honesty, does anyone believe that the US would spen 81 billion dollars to get rid of Saddam, and not expect to reap any benefits. For 1 million dollars they could have paid one of his bodyguards to kill him, no problem. But they didn't. The agenda was and is Oil, and the US considers this military operation as an investment.
Manager,
your comments about wealth and prosperity are spot on. What we in the west view as third world countries are those countries with little economic prosperity. We associate happiness with monetary value. In many third world countries, happiness is related to spending time relaxing, and having enough food on your table, and as long as everyone is fed and healthy, life is good. Some may argue that only the strong survive, and that there is nothing wrong with what the US is doing, they are maximizing the economic benefit to the citizens of there nation. One may argue that there is nothing wrong with that. That may be a good point.What I am saying is that if you want more wealth as a nation ,and will do whatever it takes, then there will be consequences. It is a fact of life. By going after this Oil in Irag, the Americans have left thousands of children as orphans. When these children grow up, and learn that there parents were killed over Oil, they will have hate, and some may go to extreme measures. That is is a fact of life, and how terrorism comes to be.
Although it would be a long research paper to prove out the point that military spending can improve the economy, here is my take.
1. World War Two, if I am correct, though it may have been WW1, led the states out of the great recession though the creation of jobs for the war. The states has never looked back. What military spending does is allow for contracts to be purchased to create military equipment, which results in huge military companies buying items such as steel, coal, or whatever to produce the new equipment. This leads to further jobs, and can be considered a form of investment. The income generated by these firms through corporate and personal tax is huge. Now, you are right in saying that why doen't the government just invest in roads, schools, etc. This is actually a form of indirect investment, not direct. Things such as roads and schols are very long term investments, and society does not reap the benefits untill kids finish university, or the flow of goods increases due to new roads. Over the long run, these are better investments. However, in the short term, which most politicans look at, a war can help improve the economy, in my opinion from what I learned in University. Once again, I may be wrong. Further, The US has alreadys stated that the cost of the war will be recovered in part by Iragi Oil, in other words, they will be stealing a resource that belong to Iraq, as a repayment for "liberating the country." By being able to purchase the oil at a fraction of the cost it costs the US to purchase, the cost of the war comes down greatly. Sounds like a good investment to me.
In all honesty, does anyone believe that the US would spen 81 billion dollars to get rid of Saddam, and not expect to reap any benefits. For 1 million dollars they could have paid one of his bodyguards to kill him, no problem. But they didn't. The agenda was and is Oil, and the US considers this military operation as an investment.
Manager,
your comments about wealth and prosperity are spot on. What we in the west view as third world countries are those countries with little economic prosperity. We associate happiness with monetary value. In many third world countries, happiness is related to spending time relaxing, and having enough food on your table, and as long as everyone is fed and healthy, life is good. Some may argue that only the strong survive, and that there is nothing wrong with what the US is doing, they are maximizing the economic benefit to the citizens of there nation. One may argue that there is nothing wrong with that. That may be a good point.What I am saying is that if you want more wealth as a nation ,and will do whatever it takes, then there will be consequences. It is a fact of life. By going after this Oil in Irag, the Americans have left thousands of children as orphans. When these children grow up, and learn that there parents were killed over Oil, they will have hate, and some may go to extreme measures. That is is a fact of life, and how terrorism comes to be.
I think it's an argument that we would continue to disagree on. The fact is, post WWII booming in the US and Canada was a direct result of our countries not being blown to shite, while Europe and Japan were. The US had no war reparations, no rebuilding costs, a dense population ready and willing to work, and empty factories that had been used for the war effort, all set up for export manufacturing. (Reccos: insert opinion here.)
Today's world economic climate is entirely different. The US may in fact rebuild Iraq, but at their own cost, and the return is sketchy. In the meantime, they spend billions without return, and add to the debt, which may or may not be paid down by these potential oil returns.
In any event, the argument that this war effort and military spending is propping up the economy NOW doesn't fly.
What's ironic, is that this is all goes back to the long term survival of keeping the US reliant on gas as a resource, and everything goes back to the auto manufacturers.
Today's world economic climate is entirely different. The US may in fact rebuild Iraq, but at their own cost, and the return is sketchy. In the meantime, they spend billions without return, and add to the debt, which may or may not be paid down by these potential oil returns.
In any event, the argument that this war effort and military spending is propping up the economy NOW doesn't fly.
What's ironic, is that this is all goes back to the long term survival of keeping the US reliant on gas as a resource, and everything goes back to the auto manufacturers.
The days of a war being able to stimulate an economy through such means as brilliant discoveries that have applicability in other ways that improve social and economic conditions have long passed us.
There hasn't been a war between the top 25 or so economic powers since World War 2. Wars are now between those with nothing to lose or those with superior might shite kicking those who can't retaliate.
The more the US generate hatred towards them around the world the worse it gets for them. Just maybe President Clinton got it right during his time in office. There are just some battles not worth fighting. Check out the last few days US news casts and see how much freedom their citizens are now getting. Our prisons don't have lock downs like what they are going through.
Oh, and Smiles comment that he likes people running his country who have been successful in business is a real laugher. Who is he referring to? Bush? Hmm, this guy has a record in business so dodgy that only family friends and those seeking the prestige of hanging out with his then President dad could say that one with a straight face. Until the baseball team where he did make money with his very small investment, his record in business was abysmal and a lot of investors lost a lot of money and his dad's rich buddies bailed him out repeatedly.
The Iraq War is a huge drain on not only the US economy but that of the rest of the world. George Bush will go down in history as the biggest fcukup President in history. Unfortunately, voters like Smiles simply don't get it and will be re-electing this political clown for a second term.
There hasn't been a war between the top 25 or so economic powers since World War 2. Wars are now between those with nothing to lose or those with superior might shite kicking those who can't retaliate.
The more the US generate hatred towards them around the world the worse it gets for them. Just maybe President Clinton got it right during his time in office. There are just some battles not worth fighting. Check out the last few days US news casts and see how much freedom their citizens are now getting. Our prisons don't have lock downs like what they are going through.
Oh, and Smiles comment that he likes people running his country who have been successful in business is a real laugher. Who is he referring to? Bush? Hmm, this guy has a record in business so dodgy that only family friends and those seeking the prestige of hanging out with his then President dad could say that one with a straight face. Until the baseball team where he did make money with his very small investment, his record in business was abysmal and a lot of investors lost a lot of money and his dad's rich buddies bailed him out repeatedly.
The Iraq War is a huge drain on not only the US economy but that of the rest of the world. George Bush will go down in history as the biggest fcukup President in history. Unfortunately, voters like Smiles simply don't get it and will be re-electing this political clown for a second term.
Some real thought provoking and enlightening posts being made in this thread today. I especially liked Manager's comments regarding the shift in North American cultural values. How true. When I read Smiles' posts I am reminded of the paradox we face today in regards to the media and journalism in general. That being, although we are now, as a global society, more informed than we have ever been (through improvements in technology), we are also less truthfully informed than we have ever been. CNN, Reuters, Associated Press are all inter-connected in one way or another and in essence are controlled by governments who decide how and when these companies may operate. Who and what can you believe? I certainly would never take anything the U.S. government says at face value. Perhaps there should be a copy of The Emperor's New Clothes sent to anyone who does.
Jinky makes a valid point that the US contributed massive sums of money to rehab Europe after World War II. These were not reparations in the sense that the wrongdoer had to make payments for the wrong it had done. However, it was some $20 billion committed through the Marshall Plan.
The Marshall Plan was not devoid of American self interest and in seeking benefits to the US economy. In fact, historians have described it as a business plan for the US.
Support for the Plan came about as many Americans feared another depression like the 1930s and saw this plan as a way to increase exports of food and manufactured goods.
Kiplinger Magazine, a business publication in the US, published a guide to show businesses how they could benefit from the plan and characterized it as follows: "The Marshall Plan is very much a business plan. . . .At its root is an office and factory and warehouse job. The Marshall Plan means work, and you will be one of the workers."
As a result of the Marshall Plan the US economy flourished.
The Marshall Plan was not devoid of American self interest and in seeking benefits to the US economy. In fact, historians have described it as a business plan for the US.
Support for the Plan came about as many Americans feared another depression like the 1930s and saw this plan as a way to increase exports of food and manufactured goods.
Kiplinger Magazine, a business publication in the US, published a guide to show businesses how they could benefit from the plan and characterized it as follows: "The Marshall Plan is very much a business plan. . . .At its root is an office and factory and warehouse job. The Marshall Plan means work, and you will be one of the workers."
As a result of the Marshall Plan the US economy flourished.
Things must have changed
Dude,
United States's Portal
Briefing you for business across the globe
Faster Productivity Growth Brings Many Rewards
Q3 GDP growth was revised upwards to 8.2%, making for the strongest quarter for the US economy in the last 20 years. ...
Dude,
United States's Portal
Briefing you for business across the globe
Faster Productivity Growth Brings Many Rewards
Q3 GDP growth was revised upwards to 8.2%, making for the strongest quarter for the US economy in the last 20 years. ...
To put that growth rate stat into another perspective.
The US is now racking up record deficits and job declines the like of which they haven't seen in over 20 years. You must be a good Republican to be only reporting the one stat and getting that wrong.
The US economy grew as a result of strong consumer spending and the massive number of Americans refinancing their homes and increasing their mortgages with low interest rates. The level of consumer debt is very high and may not be supportable if there is a downturn or sharp rise in interest rates.
More disturbing is that in the same stories you are quoting from, the US Dept of Labour is reporting that jobs in the quarter fell by a further 165,000. You might have asked the question why this is happening if company and national revenues are growing? The answer is simple: US firms are moving jobs to lower wage countries as a result of freer trade around the world.
Companies are doing well but there are lots of unemployed and laid off people.
The war in Iraq is eating a further whole in the deficit floor and this war is not going to get any cheaper any time soon.
The US is now racking up record deficits and job declines the like of which they haven't seen in over 20 years. You must be a good Republican to be only reporting the one stat and getting that wrong.
The US economy grew as a result of strong consumer spending and the massive number of Americans refinancing their homes and increasing their mortgages with low interest rates. The level of consumer debt is very high and may not be supportable if there is a downturn or sharp rise in interest rates.
More disturbing is that in the same stories you are quoting from, the US Dept of Labour is reporting that jobs in the quarter fell by a further 165,000. You might have asked the question why this is happening if company and national revenues are growing? The answer is simple: US firms are moving jobs to lower wage countries as a result of freer trade around the world.
Companies are doing well but there are lots of unemployed and laid off people.
The war in Iraq is eating a further whole in the deficit floor and this war is not going to get any cheaper any time soon.
Steve,
You're quoting a publication, but I'm trying to give you real time perspective. Nearly everyone I know who reps a US manufacturing company- and there are a lot- shares similar stories of North American wide declines in their company sales. This isn't limited to one particular product line or sector, it's widespread. The past 6 months have certainly been better than the previous 18 to that, but only because it seemed we hit bottom.
It's currently a climate where only the strong survive.
For example: NASDAQ is only up to a 17 month high now because it had dropped from an all-time high of 5,000 points in March of 2000 to a low of 1100 in September 2002. Currently the NASDAQ sits at over 1,800 points. The DOW and TSE have followed similar patterns.
Sure it's better...it always is when the only direction to go is up.
You're quoting a publication, but I'm trying to give you real time perspective. Nearly everyone I know who reps a US manufacturing company- and there are a lot- shares similar stories of North American wide declines in their company sales. This isn't limited to one particular product line or sector, it's widespread. The past 6 months have certainly been better than the previous 18 to that, but only because it seemed we hit bottom.
It's currently a climate where only the strong survive.
For example: NASDAQ is only up to a 17 month high now because it had dropped from an all-time high of 5,000 points in March of 2000 to a low of 1100 in September 2002. Currently the NASDAQ sits at over 1,800 points. The DOW and TSE have followed similar patterns.
Sure it's better...it always is when the only direction to go is up.
the manager
New Member
the real topic!
it is interesting how this thread has evolved from a discussion of the war on Iraq to a discussion of economics and the stock market...
one can certainly arge that the "real" news on the major networks (CNN, CBC, FOX. et al..) is not the headline story being reported with all sorts of commentary and live footage, but rather, the tiny numerical information scrolling across the bottom of the screen reflecting market conditions and stock reports...this, sadly, is the "real" news, what really matters.
manager
it is interesting how this thread has evolved from a discussion of the war on Iraq to a discussion of economics and the stock market...
one can certainly arge that the "real" news on the major networks (CNN, CBC, FOX. et al..) is not the headline story being reported with all sorts of commentary and live footage, but rather, the tiny numerical information scrolling across the bottom of the screen reflecting market conditions and stock reports...this, sadly, is the "real" news, what really matters.
manager
Members online
No members online now.
