Bloody Economics of War

I think that studying AQ and other Islamists can be confusing from the point of view of the current debate: ideology versus economics. After seeing Islam up close for a number of years now and reading on the subjects of both the religion and the founder of said religion: IMHO, Mohamed sat out from the get-go to establish a system whereby piety and patriotism were synonymous. Therefore, our war with the Islamists transcends the old argument of ideology versus economics as this war is about both to, at least, the leaders of our enemies.

Economics is not a root cause of war... Rather, it is not the root cause of all wars, just most of them. Of course, I wouldn't underestimate the influence of plain ol' stupidity, either...

Kat usually I find myself nodding my head when you say stuff but this time i think you're off the planet. Yes economics is often a factor and yes economics is always involved which such enormous an undertaking as war but many wars are fought for much more than economics. Here's a few things that might help you see. Consider the idea of the soldier fighting the war for economics. Do you really think so? Many could get far better economic results elsewhere at least in Aust's case. You think conscripts fought for economics? I know this twists war into the micro level but all levels count. What about leaders? Some of them might be altruists and care about their nations economy. I'm betting more than a few weren't and aren't. Holding on to power can matter a great deal more to such people. That is not always ecomomics. Belief too can play a role. You might be an even headed pragmatic. But many are not many are driven through more emotional powers like faith, fear, honour, pride. Some of them are true believers they aren't doing it for the money. Some of these have been used to recruit have they not?

Maybe this should be 2 discussions: 1. The reasons national/organizational leaders go to war and; 2. The motivations they use to recruit their followers.

Yes, I believe there are two different parts to this discussion. The motivations of the "movement" or national government and what motivates "the people" to join or support the central leadership's goals can be different. Though they are motivated by the one, important over-arching goal which is the defense, survival and even expansion of the people and their ideas. Ideology often motivates the "people" because that is what they have most in common with the other people in the land and with the government. They are motivated to insure that government continues because either it best represents their desires (such as democracy and freedom) or because it is, as in the case of Russia, the power that provides security that is less intrusive and damaging than the one that is invading them. further, a people with a well developed identity may feel that identity is under threat and that it is better to protect that and have the opportunity to establish their own government under their own identity in the future. As seen in the conflict between Russia and Nazi Germany as well as comments by some Iraqis who note that security under Saddam was better and sometimes they long for that, even if he was a murdering tyrant. Also, see the Iranian rejection of US invasion to assist in the over throw of the government. They want to win it their own way. although, they may be running out of time because their government's motivations do not currently match their own. However, it is one reason why some caution against invasion because the defense of the nation and people do not have to be tied to the ideology and motivation of the central leaders or government. I believe we also saw this in the affiliation of Sunni Nationalists with the ideologues of AQ. They didn't necessarily have the same motivation but they did have a common goal. It was not until that common goal imploded when AQs real motivations were outed that it became an unbearable alliance. In our own case, the direct attack and defense of that attack as well as the defense of "interests" that we require to exist, flourish and even provide for that common defense intersects and that, I believe, is why we have motivated people for that defense. We can discuss all day long the cause or right of the war, but when it comes down to the final common goal, defense, it all comes together.

You know, I am working on a sort of "counter" to this or, let us say, a cooperative and that is that our strongest weapon is freedom, democracy and capitalism. that being, whither our products go and trade exists so follows our ideas. And, following the theorem I wrote in the post, as trade goes, so does the wealth of a nation. Either individuals begin to realize their own personal wealth and power and begin demanding an equal say in their governance (as I believe was the case of our original colonies) or, even, they see the wealth being accumulated by the government in a centralized economy and demand their share, which they can only get if the government shares it's power. I believe this desire for economic and personal security and freedom will counter the terrorists ideology which is totally about eliminating the possibility for personal choice, opportunities for economic growth and, of course, takes away real security under the guise of enforcing strict laws for "protection." The need for a strong economy after 9/11 and the call to "go shopping" that so many (even I) have made light of, is no small matter. the collapse of our economy, which I believe was the goal of the terrorists when they struck the WTC along with destruction of central military control and government, would have rendered our ability to respond to their offense against other nations and our interest. I also believe that it was a sort of "call". The most powerful weapon we used against fascism and totalitarian governments in the past century was our capability to produce on a scale they could never compete with. In the case of WWII, it was the ability to produce on a massive scale weapons and other front line needs as well as the ingenuity that allowed us to live, even if it was somewhat rationed, that helped us win the war. Directly after that, we turned that production ability into an economic growth that allowed us to compete on a global scale while keeping prices low enough for consumers and simultaneously creating wealth for other nations through the quantities of goods and materials sold and bought. It was that power that the Soviets could never compete with in their "price controlled" concept of the market. and, finally, I believe that it was the availability of these goods on the black market, smuggled into the USSR that created a sub economy totally based on the dollar that took the revenues out of the government's pockets and eventually destroyed the value of the ruble. No wealth = no power. That is why the USSR collapsed.

...and eventually destroyed the value of the ruble. The ruble was essentially worthless outside the USSR anyway. The overproduction of paper money to keep pace with inflation, sprinkled with rampant counterfeiting and ridiculous production quotas ("Make 50,000 left shoes, size 6, for delivery to Pinsk. Here are your three cowhides") were what really greased the skids for the meltdown.

Okay, this is going to take some time to answer(not refute, but answer). THere's quite a few assumptions on which I think it begins to come apart if those assumptions aren't true(like the end all be all of war is third gen maneuver with tanks and aeroplanes and motorized infantry). It's going to take some time. But I'm not going to go headhunting on this, if you get my meaning. It's the ideas, not the person. And where's John going off on the length? Racism, or more likely speciesism. Castle Kitties(in the person of Kat) can write whatever length but gollum goes long(with bad spelling) and gets snarkage? Hater.

PhD v. High School Diploma...and I'm cuter than you. ;) Couple of thoughts Wealth of the state does not equate to wealth of the citizens in a government controlled economy. The citizens have to have some some reason to support the government. These reasons generally relate to the government best representing the citizens in three areas: administration (ie, law, social governance, etc), economy and security. Like a three legged stool, if one or more of these legs is broken, the stool falls down. However, as I noted in my address of the Declaration of Independence and its chief complaints, people will put up with a lot if they perceive some or many of their needs are being met. In fact, they will put up with a lot of injustice if the other two are met. Ask our founding fathers. Cost to benefit ratio. On the other hand, I noted that the increase in individual wealth often equates to demands for individual empowerment such as a say in government or a demand for government to more closely match the ideology of its citizens/subjects. (maybe why it is middle class Muslims that most often lead or go to Jihad) I suppose, when we are having these little comment spars, trying to reduce thoughts to a few paragraphs doesn't allow for complete thought processes to be iterated. At one point, the wealth was completely in the hands of the Soviet government. It was doled out based on its schedule v. the people enjoying the "fruits of their labor". When it was doing so more than Czarist Russia ever had and defending the people against aggression from the outside, coupled with a strong nationalist identity, injustices could be overlooked. ************ Having resources does not translate to "wealth" if it cannot trade effectively in a competitive market. That is one reason government controlled pricing fails (which, by the way, at some point I will write about Hillary care and the effect of current government controlled pricing on health care but that's for another day...continuing). Because such an economy demands cost control to the public, it limits the amount of revenue/profit any organization or individual can realize. When the outside market or global market increases the price of goods, but the price of goods internally does not rise equally, it limits revenue, thus the cash flow that the organization can use to purchase more product for sell, improve facilities and effective methods of delivery. In a state controlled economy where the organizations or companies are either directly owned, largely owned or highly regulated by the state, it becomes the states responsibility to support these organizations or companies. That means direct competition for government funds between the state's needs, the public's needs and the funds to purchase product or trade on the open/global market. that translates to a devalued currency and a decrease in buying power. Further, when the state is involved in expansion but cannot meet all of its demands, something is going to suffer such as limited salary increases to state employees (see Iran's current problems which I am writing about for Monday) which in turn limits their buying power and in turn limits the funds returning to the state. If an effective black market arises and the trade begins to take place in currency other than the state's, the state's take or return is further reduced and so is the value of its currency. In regards to the resources that it had, trade is a two way street. Not only must you have something to sell, but you have to be able to buy. If a nation cannot buy another nation's products at competitive market value and demands lower pricing due to its internal price controls, then no other state has an incentive to buy those goods and materials when it can realize a better revenue stream by trading for other readily available goods. Further reducing the value of its currency Finally, if the state owns all the industry, the state is also responsible for developing infrastructure to extract minerals, oil, etc as well as infrastructure and means to deliver it. thus, the competition for state funds reducing that ability means, regardless of how much you are sitting on, it does not translate to wealth if you can't trade it. In regards to Gorby and Parastroika with improving economy, the problem was he was presiding over a dead patient. The state was dead at that point and no longer met the economic, ideological or security demands of the people. Gorby effectively declared the patient dead while simultaneously another was born. by opening some market reforms, he began to concentrate wealth in the hands of the citizens, something that had already begun with the rising black market. However, the state had problems: inability to control or collect needed revenues (and it needed a lot to revive). Frankly, the citizens had no reason to want to assist the state. Once they had economic power and the idea of individual empowerment over the government that no longer represented their ideology, as I noted about intersecting or common goals, the state was doomed to fail. their ideology was transformed, I might add, by interaction with what amounted to a "free market" first in the black market, then in the infiltration of information (largely through this black market) like books, music, movies, etc and then in the economic reforms that allowed people to experience the first "fruits of their labor". I think they call that a "perfect storm". I do not give all the credit to Reagan though he deserves some. The implosion was actually sown before WWII. In fact, if WWII had not started, Stalin might have presided over a dead state. It was, sadly, the US that helped them transform their failing state into an industrial state. yet, at the same time, in the post war boom, I believe the drag on state economy and the competition for funding had already begun. It was set up for failure. However, the shear quantity of available goods and materials from the USSR kept it going far longer than it should have as well as the developing markets in newly free and opened nations. At the same time, I give Reagan credit for recognizing and empowering the most effective weapon that we had against the soviets: the economy. I know, people like to say that Reagan's increased military made the Sov's spend into annihilation. It is part of the equation since the internal state's competition for funding and its attempts to even come close to matching US spending helped reduce its ability to compete in the open market by destroying its financial capabilities to extract and deliver its resources. However, from my point of view, he simply pushed over a boxer that was weaving on his feet. I'm one of those "centrist" views people that think neither the left or right is completely correct in its vision of how the cold war ended. Someday, I'll talk about the use of public money for government funded economic growth that is not directly related to government areas of responsibility like roads. That's another day.

Heh....if I write it here and say we were discussing, I fully intend to have someone question it up one side and down the other. How else do you know if you are on the right track? How else do you grow? No apologies necessary. My feelings aren't hurt at all. And, I do have assets you can't touch. LOL