As the current economic crisis unfolds, the “stimulus” funding idea has been set forth as a means by which the U.S. economy might recover. Based on an interpretation of the economic model attributed to John Maynard Keynes, this promise of recovery, some argue, was last proven to work during the U.S. involvement in World War II. It was that war, so the argument goes, and the money the government poured into it, that pulled the country out of the Great Depression. Voila! War Prosperity. A chicken in every pot.
The resurgence of this idea today seems foolhardy.
Spend money to “stimulate” the economy, and prosperity will follow?
Some scholars argue against the idea that government spending turned the country around in the 1940s. Many other forces were at work, indeed. Applying a 60-year old cliché to the conditions in the U.S. today seems wrong.
After all, to date, the U.S. has spent roughly $1.09 trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars and occupations, first launched in 2001, are approaching the ten-year mark. The economic collapse, the great recession, or these “tough economic times”—whatever one chooses to call it—occurred several years into the beginning of those wars.
And yet, we find no “war prosperity” on the American landscape, save that enjoyed by those contractors who are indeed enjoying great wealth. We even hear some economists denying that the huge amount of money spent on those wars has affected the U.S. economy! The gap between rich and poor grows wider; college education is out of financial reach for more and more people; foreclosures, underemployment, unemployment and a host of other indicators of a poor economy are everywhere to be seen.
Still, some argue that we can “spend” our way out of this crisis, especially through military funding.
In “Going Bankrupt: Why the Debt Crisis Is Now the Greatest Threat to the American Republic,” noted historian Chalmers Johnson has dubbed this notion: “military Keynesianism” which he defines as “the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy.”
“The opposite is actually true,” observes Johnson.
An economy is not “stimulated” through war. It is weakened. Short term advantages may be enjoyed by a few, but the vast majority of citizens are not made better, stronger, healthier, or happier. War is a force that weakens us, not only economically, but spiritually.
An economy is not strengthened through spending, consumption, stuff, things, products, or services. An economy thrives best when it serves the vast majority of citizens whose work is valued, whose lives are respected, and whose country represents the best ideals of democracy.
Nowhere in our constitution is “retail therapy” listed as a basic right.
What we need is a "stimulus package" designed to put an end to the U.S. occupations.
The resurgence of this idea today seems foolhardy.
Spend money to “stimulate” the economy, and prosperity will follow?
Some scholars argue against the idea that government spending turned the country around in the 1940s. Many other forces were at work, indeed. Applying a 60-year old cliché to the conditions in the U.S. today seems wrong.
After all, to date, the U.S. has spent roughly $1.09 trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars and occupations, first launched in 2001, are approaching the ten-year mark. The economic collapse, the great recession, or these “tough economic times”—whatever one chooses to call it—occurred several years into the beginning of those wars.
And yet, we find no “war prosperity” on the American landscape, save that enjoyed by those contractors who are indeed enjoying great wealth. We even hear some economists denying that the huge amount of money spent on those wars has affected the U.S. economy! The gap between rich and poor grows wider; college education is out of financial reach for more and more people; foreclosures, underemployment, unemployment and a host of other indicators of a poor economy are everywhere to be seen.
Still, some argue that we can “spend” our way out of this crisis, especially through military funding.
In “Going Bankrupt: Why the Debt Crisis Is Now the Greatest Threat to the American Republic,” noted historian Chalmers Johnson has dubbed this notion: “military Keynesianism” which he defines as “the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy.”
“The opposite is actually true,” observes Johnson.
An economy is not “stimulated” through war. It is weakened. Short term advantages may be enjoyed by a few, but the vast majority of citizens are not made better, stronger, healthier, or happier. War is a force that weakens us, not only economically, but spiritually.
An economy is not strengthened through spending, consumption, stuff, things, products, or services. An economy thrives best when it serves the vast majority of citizens whose work is valued, whose lives are respected, and whose country represents the best ideals of democracy.
Nowhere in our constitution is “retail therapy” listed as a basic right.
What we need is a "stimulus package" designed to put an end to the U.S. occupations.