That's why I am calling you a dumb ass. War is very much part of economics it's the most expensive thing we do. To ignore spending trillions of dollars like it's not part of the economy is beyond ignorance and stupidity.
war is not "economics".
Economics is "the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management"
Is war a branch of social science? News to me.
That's not free market its the government awarding corporations money. It's worse than socialism, it's corporate welfare where only the rich are socialized and the poor taxed. You should stop sniffing up Naomi Kline and try actually thinking. It may hurt at first but you'll learn how to do it.
I'm not big on Naomi Klein actually. Not socialist enough.
Corporate welfare is not socialism. Sure, it isn't quite your purist extreme laissez faire, miseian thing...but that's never occurred anywhere ever and what we have now certainly isn't socialism. It's a helluva lot closer to capitalism than socialism.
Here's an example -
Even as General Motors gets a bailout......I wish to gain employment. So, I go to someone whom owns a business (a capitalist) and I ask her for a job. She says yay or nay, and she tells me what I'll get paid. I have no say in how the business runs, how profits are distributed, what is made, for whom, etc etc etc. The business owner - the capitalist - decides all those things, yes? And the capitalist gets the profits once costs (for me etc) have been deducted. Yes?
That is capitalism, not socialism, right?
Plus, don't forget that the intention is to return GM and banking to the private sector completely. Right?
Where's the socialism? What we have is crony capitalism - not socialism.
Something for you minimal-state capitalists to answer.............. how will you ever prevent your "pure" capitalism turning into crony-capitalism? With no state to prevent it, how can it be prevented?
The free -market is not supported by Neocons.
Well, yes it is - but mostly only when it suits them. Like all capitalists -- they like the upside, the downside not so much.
Nobody likes the downside do they? So naturally enough, capitalism seeks bailouts on the downside, and low taxes on the upside. But don't doubt that these people support "free-markets", competition, private property, inequality etc. They are capitalists - just not as "pure" as you free-market ideologues would like.
Regardless, neocons are capitalists and are allied with neo-liberals and liberals against socialism. Socialism stands opposed to capitalism of all varieties. It's the only true opposition.
It's not free market to have the government spending trillions it does not have to companies it is investing in itself and passing the bill along to the public.
Well, if you go and look for work, is it a free-market or not? Is it socialism or capitalist free-market you find yourself in? Want to setup a business? Is it freemarket or socialism? It is clearly not socialism. lol
I still haven't seen a distinction between neoliberalism and capitalism.......neoliberalism is a pretty extreme free-market capitalism. Miseians are even more extreme, fundamentalist eve. But you haven't managed any definitions or pointed to any significant differences yet. I thought that'd be easy for you, seeing as you are apparently so opposed to neoliberalism. [In fact you are not opposed to their economics much at all - you just want a more extreme capitalism - but then, how will you cater for unions and your universal healthcare?]
they aren't free market at all. They are warmongers who use "defesne" as a medium to treat the government like a giant ATM machine for their own interest and force the public to pay for it.
Oh. so, a corporation that deals in fruit from Central America cannot be "neoliberal"? Is that what you're saying?
Chiquita Brands International can't be neo-liberal because it isn't involved in defence, only fruit?
This points to the fact your distinction is little to do with economics and rather to do with other policies.
America is in debt because of imperialism it is not made wealthy by war. A selective group transferes wealth from the public to themselves via the government for war related contracts. That's not creating wealth it is stealing it. American do not benefit for the wars, only a tiny slot of multinational corporations benefit.
oh, but following WW2 America setup the UN, IMF, World Trade Organisation etc. If America had not been victorious in WW2 and emerged with unparalleled power it would not have been able to setup all these organisations which were made to its benefit and which helped
GENERAL American prosperity through the next 50 years. American working classes were the best-off in the world. Seemingly that completely contradicts your position?
If USA has no army to speak of, maybe China will setup a world system of trade and politics which benefit itself enormously and to the detriment of USA? It isn't impossible, is it?
BTW - do you really think most Americans would support your wish to decimate the army and cut defence spending to nothing? I don't think they will buy into that. I'd support it, but I don't think many Americans will. Who knows? How do you know?
Lockheed Martin Bechtel, Halliburton, Boeing etc gain money.
They do employ people you know? And they do pay a little in tax, too, you know?
You fail to understand anyo f this because you see to judge America by how well it's wealthiest war related industries are doing, not the public, not employment rates, the strength of the dollar, the average income none of that just how well is KBR doing.
No.
My interest is in the American working class, really - I
am a socialist.
However, I insist it is naive to believe that America could renounce its military and interventionist foreign policy without severely damaging its economic position vis the rest of the world.
What do you think the military is for, after all? Surely there's a reason for it? Yes, to make the wealthy weathier.....but don't be so naive to imagine it wouldn't hurt working Americans too.
Those profits are for Americans dumb ass. They profiteer for their own personal interest. How is that so hard to understand. Companies that make missile need conflicts that use missiles.
Employees? Heard of them?
Taxes? Heard of them?
Wall St and pensions......heard of them?
So, it most certainly does go to average americans, to an extent. Of course, the most powerful make the most out of it.....but don't imagine working class americans get nothing out of it. That's naive.
What kind of dumb ass thinks war benefits the people.
Errr....it
can
benefit people. You're happy to acknowledge the captains of (certain) industry benefit.....but you refuse to accept anyone else can benefit. Not even the workers in the relevant industry? Not even those whom invest in them? Supply them? Obtain something in taxes from them?
And here's another way - how many people does the US defence industry employ in all its spheres? The army, navy, NASA, R+D etc? That's a lot of employees. All those people "benefit". They all have jobs, income, pay taxes and spend money into the wider economy.
Sure, better they did something else - absolutely. What? When? At what cost? Unemployment is already high, what would these extra millions do?
So where exactly is the saving coming from?
As a free-marketeer you would put all these people on the dole, and just wait for the private sector to employ them.....doing something....sometime?
money coming from the government to corporations that's socialism.
That's absurd. Corporations are capitalist entities. Socialism is not about providing working-class monies to capitalist institutions. DUH!!!!
Also don't forget the utter immorality of it all slaughtering people based on lies.
Gee, and I nearly forgot?
I'm a socialist - I fully support canons into ploughs. But how would a free market fundamentalist do that? Just sit back and wait?
