Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine
- Thread starter baboon2004
- Start date
Speaking of war, one thing which has never made sense to me is the idea (I lack the knowledge to say "fact") that it was as a consequence of World War II that the USA pulled out of the Great Depression.
How does this make economic sense? Why should the economy be better served - better stimulated - by a total war, then, say, a similar program of comparable size that was nevertheless not geared towards military ends.
How does this make economic sense? Why should the economy be better served - better stimulated - by a total war, then, say, a similar program of comparable size that was nevertheless not geared towards military ends.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
cos - as I understand it - it's nigh unto impossible to create a program of comparable size. Roosevelt tried - huge chunk of the New Deal was creating public works projects, sometimes out of thin air, to give people work - but short of a central planning committee (which have been, as state communism in practice shows, pretty much unqualified disasters) you can't just order firms to start producing more goods & banks to start lending to people & firms. but with a war economy w/the govt. as the primary client, firms know they're going to get paid & so they're willing to put capital into projects, which means more jobs, more spending $, more goods purchased, more goods produced, blah blah blah. this stuff all gets frighteningly complex rather quickly.
Vimothy or someone else care to comment? afraid I can't talk much today.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
The way I understand it this is in part because the U.S. at the time was still the world center of industrial production. So as we're rebuilding infastructure all over the world, our economy is raking it in.
We were what China is now at the time, with the world's largest manufacturing, and industrial production output.
vimothy
yurp
It isn't that war provides the best, most efficacious stimulus -- it doesn't -- but that that particular period is a good case study of the effects of stimulus. In fact the exact effect of military (to be understood as a proxy for government) spending during WWII is quite controversial. It has come up a lot in right versus left debates about Obama's stimulus plan. Eugene Fama, Finance prof at the U of Chicago, for instance, recently posted on his blog a variation of what is known as the "Treasury View", which is the argument put forward by British Treasury staff in the '30s, namely, that fiscal policy has no effect because any increase in spending reduces private spending by the same amount. Data from WWII provide an opportunity to test this because there was a massive increase in government spending programmes. How much did increased defence spending increase GDP? The answer would give us an expected multiplier for government spending. Robert Barro says,
So it seems that government spending, in the context of these experiments, increased GDP by a multiplier of 0.8. But of course, many people disagree, and argue that increased government spending did not have any positive effect on the economy. Including, it seems, Robert Barro:
So it seems that government spending, in the context of these experiments, increased GDP by a multiplier of 0.8. But of course, many people disagree, and argue that increased government spending did not have any positive effect on the economy. Including, it seems, Robert Barro:
Last edited:
Mr BoShambles
jambiguous
Humanitarian War
Know this is a bit off topic but wondered whether you think that humanitarian intervention can ever be truly apolitical/neutral as if often claimed? Or - as Alex de Waal argues below - is humanitarian action always political action?
read full peice here
Know this is a bit off topic but wondered whether you think that humanitarian intervention can ever be truly apolitical/neutral as if often claimed? Or - as Alex de Waal argues below - is humanitarian action always political action?
Most contemporary debates treat military humanitarian intervention and its younger sibling, the responsibility to protect (R2P), as matters of law. But perhaps because of the implication that “humanitarian” actions are above criticism, and because the reality of war is clouded by the euphemism “intervention,” there has been too little comparative and historical analysis of the topic. Still less have recent humanitarian interventions been studied as instances of aggressive war – albeit arguably “just war.”
Subjecting war to regulation is both necessary and hazardous. Most ethical traditions contain a concept of just war, and the concepts of restraining excessive violence and respecting at least minimum standards of humanity in wartime are as old as the practice of war itself. There are rich traditions of scholarship on these issues, the best ones informed by a somber appraisal of the inevitable shortcomings of trying to restrain war in any way. Carl von Clausewitz’s maxims and observations remain true: he noted that war tends toward the absolute in a ratchet of escalation; decisions are clouded by the “fog of war” and their implementation is impeded by “friction” that makes the simplest actions extraordinarily difficult to carry out. The label of “humanitarian” does not make military action any easier.
[….]
There is no such thing as humanitarian military intervention distinct from war or counterinsurgency. Intervention and occupation should not be confused with classic peacekeeping, which is difficult enough even with a ceasefire agreement and the consent of the parties. If we want an intervention to overthrow a tyranny, protect citizens from their own government, or deliver humanitarian aid during an ongoing conflict, we should be honest with ourselves – we are arguing for a just war. And if we wish to make this case, let us be clear that the war is political (and must be very smartly political to succeed); that military logic will dictate what happens (including probable escalation and various unpredictable factors); and that it will entail bloodshed including the killing of innocent people.
Subjecting war to regulation is both necessary and hazardous. Most ethical traditions contain a concept of just war, and the concepts of restraining excessive violence and respecting at least minimum standards of humanity in wartime are as old as the practice of war itself. There are rich traditions of scholarship on these issues, the best ones informed by a somber appraisal of the inevitable shortcomings of trying to restrain war in any way. Carl von Clausewitz’s maxims and observations remain true: he noted that war tends toward the absolute in a ratchet of escalation; decisions are clouded by the “fog of war” and their implementation is impeded by “friction” that makes the simplest actions extraordinarily difficult to carry out. The label of “humanitarian” does not make military action any easier.
[….]
There is no such thing as humanitarian military intervention distinct from war or counterinsurgency. Intervention and occupation should not be confused with classic peacekeeping, which is difficult enough even with a ceasefire agreement and the consent of the parties. If we want an intervention to overthrow a tyranny, protect citizens from their own government, or deliver humanitarian aid during an ongoing conflict, we should be honest with ourselves – we are arguing for a just war. And if we wish to make this case, let us be clear that the war is political (and must be very smartly political to succeed); that military logic will dictate what happens (including probable escalation and various unpredictable factors); and that it will entail bloodshed including the killing of innocent people.
read full peice here
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Furthermore, the US went from being the world's greatest borrower, to the world's greatest creditor, a position now held by China. Unfortunately for China, the money leant to the US was not invested as productively as the post-war loans made by the US in the wake of WWII.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
thank you for your second sentence in particular, Padraig.
haha!
still, a Haaretz piece Vim linked to shows him making some soup, so it's not all bad.. (and he met his wife in first grade?!)
i think de Waal is on to something here; he is a guy that thinks carefully about these issues.
incidentally, for those that are unfamiliar with his personal history, he resigned in protest from Africa Watch after his friend/colleague Rakiya Omaar was fired by them for disagreements with the top brass (!) toward Operation Restore Hope, the American led-intervention in Somalia starting Dec. 1992. (HRW were the parent group of Africa Watch at the time. de Waal's resignation was partly his own argument with Africa Watch but i think it's fair to say he was also acting in solidarity with his friend Rakiya, though i'd be happy to be told otherwise if i have this skew-whiff.)
yes, i know, organisations have internal policies etc etc.
De Waal and Omaar actually authored a piece Can Military Intervention Be ‘Humanitarian'? in the Middle East Report [Vol. 41 No. 2/3 (1994): 3-8, if you're interested]. (i've never actually read that one i admit, but can guess what it's saying; i've read enough de Waal.)
i am hoping that - given we've had John Keegan mentioned - at the very least we'll have his anecdotes concerning the likes of Max Hastings and Richard Holmes come up!
(and this Simon Schama lecture the other day sounded good, Ollie.)
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Only number 7 - but that can change
At some point I'll have to read back to see what has been said, so that I can respond in a measured way. Or i could just read a few random bits.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Only number 7 - but that can change
At some point I'll have to read back to see what has been said, so that I can respond in a measured way. Or i could just read a few random bits.
afaik it stopped being about NK somewhere round page 3
vimothy
yurp
Meta-Dissensus
The longer a thread lasts, the more it converges with the other threads on the board. Ultimately, on Dissensus there is only one thread (as well some boring shit about dubstep). I am trying to work out a mathematical expression that describes this tendency.
The longer a thread lasts, the more it converges with the other threads on the board. Ultimately, on Dissensus there is only one thread (as well some boring shit about dubstep). I am trying to work out a mathematical expression that describes this tendency.