Does War Actually Make Money?

[Padawanbater2]

You can rename or fill in the blank on the USA companies.... that's fine. I am talking about your premise...which is INSANE btw...of using a Russian corp as opposed to a USA corp.... UHHH DUH!!!! incredibly naive. Incredibly so.....go sit in the corner.



So, in Paddy's world.... the companies should say nope...we aren't going to war with the country we work in.

Paddy's country was taken over last week after only 4 weeks of being in existence.... now ur country gets to work for ....some other country.

When your country calls upon you in time of need.... you best answer that call. And answer it well.

Dude, it's so hard to have a conversation with you. Reread what I wrote.

I'm saying it's wrong for a corporation to use their power to influence politicians to vote for wars. Why is that so hard for you to understand, and how could you possibly oppose it?

My company makes and sells munitions. It's peace time, nobody is using any munitions. Would it not be financially beneficial for me and my company for some kind of conflict to break out so that my company starts selling more munitions? These corporations have incredible amounts of money and power, this happens all the time.

 

[CrackerJax]

That is ridiculous..... name a politician in Congress that voted for war so profit would be made.... even if one person was that low...it is hardly an indictment of the system. You have a basic lack of faith in the CORE values of the USA.

Seriously, perhaps you would be happier elsewhere.... you only have one life you know....why waste it in a land which you don't trust anything. It's roses everywhere else....right?

This isn't the Klingon empire yah know..... we don't go to war easily....

 

[roll365]

Im from Northern Ireland so I have some insight into war an I think Goverments an there citizens gain substantially in the long run from from a war.

Firstly goverments dont go into war without a long tearm vision and that vision is wealth and more power. I think they make the money from Tecnoligy, Mineral's, Arms, Parmacuticles and beleive it or not illegal Narcotis.
it realy is that simple

 

[device123]

Actually there is big money in war ill just list a few...

1.Banks loan money to counties like in world war 1 the rothchilds which own the federal reserve bank funded both side of the war as well as the american revolution, french revolution those countries of course take out big loans at interest which then the public pay's when they get taxed. this is known as divide and conquer .

2.Commodity Dealer's War usually leads to a shortage in the supply of commodities, which results in higher prices and higher revenues.

3.Arm Dealer's make money from supplying arm's to small country's resistance fighter's, freedom fighter's, those kind's or small armed group found in africa, which then they use on there own people.

4.Also Civilian and military contractors like blackwater, lockhead martin etc...

5.also pharmaceutical companies like ig farben, which is now bayer pharmaceutical company which developed dangerous vaccines and different drugs to use on prisoners in Auschwitz the concentration camp, and is now still profiting from that research which killed properly millions of people now.

now you cant say that war doesnt make money thats a farce.

 

[canndo]

When you rail against religion....you rail against the left. The church is based on socialism as well. Collectivism.

So combining the two together.... we can conclude that the left end of the political ideologies is pretty much responsible for all of man's misery....

The church is socialism.

Religion is a leftist institution? really? How you arrived there is beyond me. Certainly there were moments of leftist action - Christ himself was a liberal, so too Luther, both because they were revolutionaires who actively fought the establishment they were involved with but what follows every revolution is a new and equaly conservative institution.

 

[cannabineer]

Religion is a leftist institution? really? How you arrived there is beyond me. Certainly there were moments of leftist action - Christ himself was a liberal, so too Luther, both because they were revolutionaries who actively fought the establishment they were involved with but what follows every revolution is a new and equally conservative institution.

You must be as bored as I, canndo ... arguing (political) religion with a ghost. cn

 

[canndo]

You must be as bored as I, canndo ... arguing (political) religion with a ghost. cn

Well, it's that, natural rights or santa claus

 

[cannabineer]

Well, it's that, natural rights or santa claus

Santa Claus, Commie hipster ... red before it was cool. cn

 

[canndo]

Santa Clause, Commie hipster ... red before it was cool. cn

don't tell me you missed my "tale of two santas"

 

[Mr Neutron]

That is ridiculous..... name a politician in Congress that voted for war

Do they STILL do that?

 

[cannabineer]

don't tell me you missed my "tale of two santas"

I saw it ... but the whole idea of Gov't as Santa is problematic imo, regardless of partisan content. I had no comment that could advance the thread. cn

 

[InCognition]

Let's cut to the chase here...

People seem to be comparing WW2 & the Mid-East wars. Not even remotely comparable in terms of economics... none, nadda, zip. Stop trying to compare the two... you can't without making yourself look like an ignoramus.

War is not good nor profitable when the money used for that war, is loaned from foreign banks. If the exact money, used for war-money is not loaned directly from a foreign bank, well it essentially still is. This is because tax moneys that now cease to exist due to war expenditures, need to be replaced by these foreign loans. This is what's currently going on, which is why the Mid-Eastern wars are absolutely not profitable, regardless of any "theory" stating otherwise.

Mathematics simply don't lie, and math has shown that the Mid-East war has been a massive fucking loss on every imaginable level, other than the large corporations, and their affiliated private-interest groups. In fact, I believe there is actually a loss to both corporations and their private-interest groups, but it's just not a realized loss. None-the-less, the tax payed realizes these losses harder, and faster.

Now if the government doesn't want to fund all the war expenses through foreign loans, they can simply print more money. When you print more money, you get more inflation. More inflation makes your money worth less, and artificially lowers government debt. This would be a government profit in the sense, that they are profiting from the backs of tax payers, while robbing them in order to do so. Profit for the government, not for it's tax payers... I hardly consider that "profitable".

The reason why WW2 can be viewed as profitable is because the majority of the services, assets, labor, financials, business, etc., was done "in-house", here in America. That is why there is plenty of credibility in stating WW2 as being profitable. That is hardly the case with the wars we fight today.

Some people seem to view war as a "good for all" scenario in terms of economics. It's a (usually forced) redistribution of wealth and nothing more. Depending on the beneficiaries, it's good and profitable for some, and not for others. Then again, this is how profit works. War doesn't profit for it's people though, when large sums of the "profits" are payed to foreign countries, as stated above.