Hey I’ve seen this meme in so many times but can some one tell me from which movie it is.
The Person of Interest TV series. S04E10 The Cold War.
Thank you kind stranger.
I’ll be that guy that says wars cost a fuckton. So the US gov’t can’t live war to war because it doesn’t help them. Not financially anyway.
*I’m getting a lot of similar messages so: Maybe profitable for industries. Expensive for government. Take a look at any federal deficit and debt.
Maybe not the government or citizens, but war helps the congress members, the CEOs of the military industrial complex, and their families get fabulously wealthy.
You can do that without war.
I’m not talking about what could be. I’m talking about the political reality that surrounds us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering
The government isn’t something that exists above society, but is a facet of it. The MIC directly profits from wars, it pays politicians, politicians are motivated toward hawkish positions, the taxpayer is made to subsidize this. There are many other circuits discussed in the article, as concern the impact war has on the consumer market, how it’s used for imperialism, etc.
Ultimately, wealth comes from labor, but the arrangement of war profiteering is extremely good at extracting wealth from labor in all sorts of ways.
Government debt.
People might have an easier time understanding a statement if it’s a full sentence.
Seriously? Government debt is different than private MIC profit.
You’re asking me to make your argument for you. Use you words.
…I just did.
Can you not try to construct a syllogism for me? Stating one obvious fact is not an argument.
Wars are plenty profitable if you’re a lot bigger than your opponents and can force them to be subservient to your business interests. It’s not a fluke that the richest country on earth is also the one with the most frequent wars.
Is that not the point? Government functions by moving wealth from the public into the private, massive expenses portrayed to be for our benefit end up being excuses for taxes, and the enormous costs facilitate enormous wealth transfers into the private corporations who support and facilitate the wars.
moving wealth from the public into the private
That’s a side effect of capitalism and lobbying (aka bribing) the government for preferential treatment. But it’s kind of the opposite of the point of government. Most businesses are incredibly selfish and will cut every corner they can without the government there to enforce workplace safety, market rules, and policing fraud and theft.
I’m a fan of capitalism, but not the kind of capitalism that decrees something is too big to fail and must be bailed out.
Next you’ll say that you like capitalism, but not the kind that uses slave labor as an integral element.
I don’t care for capitalism, but Adam Smith was an abolitionist. He absolutely hated slavery because he believed it to be immoral firstly, and economically inefficient secondly. He couldn’t prove the second part, but once someone at either Cambridge or Oxford did manage to prove it, Great Britain and Europe outlawed slavery. Again, I’m not defending capitalism here, and I’m certain, from the tone of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that, were he alive today, Smith would be railing against Capitalism. I’m just pointing out that it was supposed to be abolished far quicker than The Civil War.
Slave labor didn’t stop being integral element after the Civil War. It was scaled back, but it’s still both locally an integral element of the economies of many states (via prison labor, to say nothing of how under-the-table migrant dealings go) and via imperialism, etc. used abroad.
I’m not attacking Smith. The “invisible hand” thing is silly and short-sighted, but his work more broadly was the foundation for Marx economically. I’m attacking capitalism as it has existed in history, where it has virtually always used slave labor as an integral element.
