Those Idiotic Tanks and Planes
Listening to a fairly coherent investment "expert" the other day, the phrase "those idiotic tanks and planes" escaped his lips when talking about the Ukrainian-Russian war. He believed the money poured into these items to be irrational. Resources directed at war takes away from the general economy and therefore will never benefit mankind. He included the point that war never benefits the economy, despite what some people believe.
Now, war does generate economic activity, doesn't it? Of course it does. When the Great Depression had settled like a massive, seemingly permanent weight on the American economy at the end of the 1930s, American business slowed to a crawl, with no end in sight. America's entrance into World War II brought under-utilized industries to life as factories were outfitted to produce war materials and millions were employed to man the machines called to production. So was this guy wrong? Yes and no.
If we only look at the increase in production during war, we have to say that economic activity certainly benefits, if we only see that which previously was dormant springing to life. But if we look at what is produced, we can understand how war in the end does not, indeed cannot, benefit mankind. Simply put, war production puts weapons in the hands of those who then use these weapons to kill and destroy. And if we quantify the killing and destroying, we will find that the benefit that accrues to those who gain employment from war production pales in comparison to the death and destruction caused by those products. So some people benefit temporarily, while the rest of us on ultimately lose. The obvious losers are, of course, the victims of war, whether on the winning or losing side. But let's not forget that funneling effort and human capital into production of weapons for war means that products that directly benefit mankind - food, clothing, shelter, services of all kinds - never see the light of day. We become poorer as a result. It's just common sense
But getting back to the phrase "idiotic tanks and planes," common sense also tell us that something's missing, or isn't quite right, with the "idiotic" descriptive. "Idiotic" has never stopped governments from pursuing a given course of action. Even those who support big government will admit that massive waste, even fraud, is part of such government. Rather than question the size of government, they will claim they can reduce waste and control or eliminate fraud. The idea that huge governments, of their very nature, engender waste and fraud somehow never dawns on them. Of if it does, they simply ignore this reality in order to promote whatever agenda they support, which agenda inevitably involves them gaining power and, in many cases, riches.
OK, we'll leave that subject for now if only to avoid a soapbox-style rant. What's relevant to our discussion today is simply this: Governments hardly ever pause and think about whether pursuing a war will, on balance, really benefit their citizens. At least I'm having trouble thinking of any such example. Can you? So idiotic or not, tanks and planes will be produced to support the wars that governments pursue, whenever and however they decide to do so.
Now, war does generate economic activity, doesn't it? Of course it does. When the Great Depression had settled like a massive, seemingly permanent weight on the American economy at the end of the 1930s, American business slowed to a crawl, with no end in sight. America's entrance into World War II brought under-utilized industries to life as factories were outfitted to produce war materials and millions were employed to man the machines called to production. So was this guy wrong? Yes and no.
If we only look at the increase in production during war, we have to say that economic activity certainly benefits, if we only see that which previously was dormant springing to life. But if we look at what is produced, we can understand how war in the end does not, indeed cannot, benefit mankind. Simply put, war production puts weapons in the hands of those who then use these weapons to kill and destroy. And if we quantify the killing and destroying, we will find that the benefit that accrues to those who gain employment from war production pales in comparison to the death and destruction caused by those products. So some people benefit temporarily, while the rest of us on ultimately lose. The obvious losers are, of course, the victims of war, whether on the winning or losing side. But let's not forget that funneling effort and human capital into production of weapons for war means that products that directly benefit mankind - food, clothing, shelter, services of all kinds - never see the light of day. We become poorer as a result. It's just common sense
But getting back to the phrase "idiotic tanks and planes," common sense also tell us that something's missing, or isn't quite right, with the "idiotic" descriptive. "Idiotic" has never stopped governments from pursuing a given course of action. Even those who support big government will admit that massive waste, even fraud, is part of such government. Rather than question the size of government, they will claim they can reduce waste and control or eliminate fraud. The idea that huge governments, of their very nature, engender waste and fraud somehow never dawns on them. Of if it does, they simply ignore this reality in order to promote whatever agenda they support, which agenda inevitably involves them gaining power and, in many cases, riches.
OK, we'll leave that subject for now if only to avoid a soapbox-style rant. What's relevant to our discussion today is simply this: Governments hardly ever pause and think about whether pursuing a war will, on balance, really benefit their citizens. At least I'm having trouble thinking of any such example. Can you? So idiotic or not, tanks and planes will be produced to support the wars that governments pursue, whenever and however they decide to do so.
Comments