Why isn’t war helping economy?

iraqoilOn the McClatchy news site, economist Linda Bilmes, co-author of “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict,” explains why the Iraq war isn’t giving the economy a “war bump”:

Unlike World War II, the Iraq war “has had a net negative effect on the economy. This is for several reasons. First, the money that we spend every month goes largely to operational costs (fuel, laundry, cooking, transportation, repairs), much of which is performed by subcontractors from the Philippines, Nepal and other countries. So in effect, the dollars spent do not have any positive return for the U.S. economy. Second, because we have borrowed all the money to fight the war, largely from abroad, we have added to the deficit and to the national debt, which means we have to pay more interest and adds a burden onto the economy. Third, the war has contributed to the increase in oil prices, which of course take money out of the hands of consumers, and lower business margins, and transfer it to the oil producers.”

31 Comments

  1. JMWalker
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 6:18 am | Permalink

    Then there’s the ex-bushters:
    Ex-Bushie Still Pounding the Pavement

    Loyalty took no one so far in the Bush administration as Alberto Gonzales. But eight months after he resigned amid allegations of possible perjury and enabling arguably unconstitutional activity, the former Bush administration attorney general still cannot find a job, the New York Times reports:

    Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews.

    He has, through friends, put out inquiries, they said, and has not found any takers. What makes Mr. Gonzales’s case extraordinary is that former attorneys general, the government’s chief lawyer, are typically highly sought. …

    Despite those credentials, he left office last August with a frayed reputation over his role in the dismissal of several federal prosecutors and the truthfulness of his testimony about a secret eavesdropping program. He has had no full-time job since his resignation, and his principal income has come from giving a handful of talks at colleges and before private business groups. …

    The greatest impediment to Mr. Gonzales’s being offered the kind of high-salary job being snagged these days by lesser Justice Department officials, many lawyers agree, is his performance during his last few months in office. In that period, he was openly criticized by lawmakers for being untruthful in his sworn testimony. His conduct is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department, which could recommend actions from exonerating him to recommending criminal charges. Friends set up a fund to help pay his legal bills.

    The price of loyalty indeed.

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/7950_exbushie_still.html

    Sometimes people get what they deserve.

  2. bth
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    Maybe the war isn’t helping the economy but it sure is helping the profits of the war-related businesses abd Big Oil.

  3. StevenEDavis
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Except for WW II, isn’t the “war bump” idea kind of a myth. After WW II we were coming out of a world wide depression.

    But maybe the Bush plan is to put us in a world-wide depression, so that the next war provides a war bump.

  4. Posted April 15, 2008 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    First, the money that we spend every month goes largely to operational costs (fuel, laundry, cooking, transportation, repairs), much of which is performed by subcontractors from the Philippines, Nepal and other countries. So in effect, the dollars spent do not have any positive return for the U.S. economy.

    Just heard Kevin Phillips on NPR. He says the prime money-maker for America now is. . .money. Financial services, ATM fees, and the like. Speaking generally, we’re not creating anything anymore. “American goods” is fast becoming an anachronism.

    And it’s not just manufacturing–honestly, if they could outsource the outsourcing —oh wait. . .they’ve already done that!

    It’s all about making money for some –at the expense of the rest of us.

  5. beber
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    I think you’ll find that the U.S. is still the world’s largest manufacturer of products. Take a look at what is going down the interstate on flatbed trucks to get an idea. It’s true that many segments’ manufacturing is sick or dead. I wonder if during this period of perceived manufacturing decline if the real value and or volume of our products has actually increased?

  6. Posted April 15, 2008 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    Take a look at what is going down the interstate on flatbed trucks to get an idea.

    What I see are trains coming thru with cars marked “Hanjin” and “China Shipping.”

    Either instance is, of course, anecdotal. But try this, beber–go to, say, Target, and buy some fairly common items: clothing, appliances, whatever, at random.

    Try not to buy something made in China.

    P.S. My point is not that trade is bad, but a greed-based economy is doomed to collaspe.

  7. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    “It’s all about making money for some –at the expense of the rest of us”

    Socialize the costs. Privatize the profits.

    Some folks are too dumb to see it

  8. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    “It’s all about making money for some –at the expense of the rest of us”

    Socialize the costs.

    Privatize the profits.

    And some folks are too dumb to see it

  9. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    …oh, and just because something is rolling down our interestates, doesnt mean it was manufactured in this country.

    duh

  10. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    sorry for the double post. I’m not sure I like this new blog technology.

  11. Phantom
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    McCain’s new economic plan sounds just like the old economic plan. Cut corporate tax rates to 25% to get rid of that nasty deficit!
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080415/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_dc_3

  12. Phantom
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    The war is helping the economy! The economy of the Islamic nations.

  13. Phantom
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    The monstrous profits of the oil companies will trickle down! Right Paulie?

  14. writerdog
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    Manufacturing is the heart of any economy, it was the sudden influx of the defense manufacturing that brought the boom in WWII. A consumer based economy is a fruitless economy, when it is based on “takers” and no providers. Look at Wal-Mart as a classic example, their actually went to China, set up the manufacturing of their goods there. Force their American suppliers to move their manufacturing off shore in order to be able to provide for the price that Wal-Mart demanded them to charge.

    Now of everyone interested in the U.S. and China’s relationship, it is Wal-Mart. If the relationship goes sour. They have no one to turn to that could be a back-up in time to provide the goods to keep the company from going under. The Columbia trade deal seem the best one so far, the rest seem more to enable this country to go further into a Consumer based economy. This topic is a good example of why without the use of the American manufacturing and American companies to provide service in a war. That it does no good to have the war.

  15. Phantom
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Oil pushing 114 pb. Life is good for the oil men. When is the recession supposed to start affecting the demand/supply equation?

  16. Phantom
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Looks like all we’re going to get for our efforts is stagflation. The PPI just went up.

  17. Posted April 15, 2008 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    It goes without saying wars are bad for the economy. The only reason America prospered after ww2 was because much of the manufacturing in Europe was destroyed and they had to buy their goods from somewhere. America now has a military that is maintained through a credit card. We borrow money to build weapons which we turn around and destroy so we get no return on our investment.

    Of course the Bush regime said the war wasn’t going to cost anything over $30 billion and that would be paid for by all the oil we got from Iraq. Republican shills denounced anyone who said anything different as supporters of terrorism who wanted to keep Saddam in power, and the corporate media went along with hardly any skepticism.

    Now we reap the seeds of Republican economic and foreign policy with a national debt that would shock even Reagan. But the contracts to overseas companies continues and continues and is promised another four years with McCain.

  18. Phantom
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Here’s what’s wrong with the cons. supply/demand equation.
    “OPEC has ignored pressure from oil-consuming countries to boost production and its biggest member Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading oil exporter, has curbed supplies in response to weaker demand.

    A Saudi oil source said on Friday Saudi Arabia had trimmed its output by about 200,000 bpd to 9 million bpd.”
    When demand decreases they’ll just regulate the supply.

  19. TomPaine
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    I wonder how many prowar hawks would continue to support the war if the government levied a tax to pay for it?

  20. Posted April 15, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Why isn’t war helping economy?

    Could it be cause we buy all our $hit from China?

  21. mrbill
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Mainly its due to the war being such a small little piss-ant dust up it doesnt register much in our huge economy. This war is smaller than some individual battles in WWII.

    Just a fart in the wind compared to the size of the US economy. Yes, even during this little hiccup we are having with the subprime scam.

    If we would smarten up we would allow some of these big mortgage banks like Bear Stearns to go tits-up. Let them understand we are not going to float them anymore. A few hundred thousand unemployed bankers in New York City is of no concern to the rest of the country. Might be good for their attitude anyway.

  22. Posted April 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    If we would smarten up we would allow some of these big mortgage banks like Bear Stearns to go tits-up. Let them understand we are not going to float them anymore. A few hundred thousand unemployed bankers in New York City is of no concern to the rest of the country. Might be good for their attitude anyway.

    Hell YES. If you play wit fire, you might get burned. Let them.

    sounds harsh, but goes for the home “owners” too. Don’t buy what you can’t afford.

  23. Phantom
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    I believe this war has cost more than WW2, and still counting.

  24. Phantom
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    If they had to pay for it, it would take out about half of the remaining 20% bush faithful.

  25. Phantom
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    That may have been ww1, not sure. But, I’d read it’d cost more than one of them.

  26. bth
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    sounds harsh, but goes for the home “owners” too. Don’t buy what you can’t afford.

    I tend to agree sol BUT …

    (a) How about the effect on neighbors with all these boaredd-up houses? I think we might be better off trying to salvage them.

    (b) I think in some cases there is evidence of fraud and misrepresenattion on the part of mortgage brokers. In those cases I think we should help the homeowners.

  27. Wiseman
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    War is damn good business, (Tankers) for the foreigners.

  28. Posted April 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    Good posts, SteveD, KFarmgrrl and MaggotP.

    The money which the war might have generated for increased US production is just going to rich corps which outsource it all to foreign workers.

    This war can’t even generate jobs.

    Total failure all the way around . . .

    BTW, MrBill, idiotic.

    Pure idiocy. 2 billion a week is not a “dust up.” If it is, then, YOU pay it.

  29. Phantom
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    When you outsource a war, and there are no spoils, what can you expect except to be holding the bag.

  30. KansasNative
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    The very people who financed, planned, plotted, and carried out the Twin Towers attack on 9/11/2001 (the Saudis) and Halliburton are the ones profiting from the war in Iraq.

  31. Phantom
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    WOT best thing ever happened for Saudi Arabia and Iran!

2 Trackbacks

  1. By Iraq War » Why isn’t war helping economy? on April 15, 2008 at 8:04 am

    [...] Sibby Online wrote an interesting post today on Why isnâ??t war helping economy?Here’s a quick excerptLinda Bilmes, co-author of “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict,” explains why the Iraq war isn’t giving… [...]

  2. By War In Iraq » Why isn’t war helping economy? on April 15, 2008 at 8:18 am

    [...] Down the Rabbit Hole wrote an interesting post today on Why isnâ??t war helping economy?Here’s a quick excerptLinda Bilmes, co-author of “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict,” explains why the Iraq war isn’t giving… [...]