Who is most evil?

[Frosty]

Originally posted by Wulf
Economies do well following good legislation and leadership once wars have ended, not from wars themselves.

While I'm flattered that you made such an effort to try and discredit me by disproving a statement I made, I'm going to have to let you know that your effort was in vain.

I was merely pointing out an error in Skyfire's statement. Economic growth does not occur during a war, but after one, particularly long wars. I made no stipulations as to what else was or was not required for this to occur, only that when it happens in relation to a war, it occurs after victory, and mostly after an extended conflict. Something which cannot be disproved.

The aftermath of the World Wars left nations with huge debts. The Cold War, especially after we fed the Soviets the 'Star Wars' disinformation, left the USSR bankrupt, and the government collapsed in '91.

That sounds like losing to me. It seems my statement actually served to clarify further the fact that losing generally fucks you up, so I have no idea why you included that, since it can't serve any purpose besides making you look foolish.

I would also like to point out that your statement is also innaccurate in that economies do not need to be legislated in order to thrive. More often than not, governmental involvement in such issues will damage, rather than strengthen an economy.

Take, for instance, the US after WWII. Thousands of soldiers came home from years in foxholes, dreaming of the USA. There were ample job opportunities, and plenty of men to fill them; men who were eager to buy and acquire products after so long without them. Nice cars, nice houses, nice food, and so on and so forth. The economic growth of the 50s occured as a result of an eagerness to be gainfully employed coupled with an eagerness to purchase material goods, not because of any legislation.

It was a valiant effort, but don't grasp at straws, especially ones that don't exist.

 

[junior]

Originally posted by Frosty

While I'm flattered that you made such an effort to try and discredit me by disproving a statement I made, I'm going to have to let you know that your effort was in vain.

I was merely pointing out an error in Skyfire's statement. Economic growth does not occur during a war, but after one, particularly long wars. I made no stipulations as do what else was or was not required for this to occur, only that when it happens in relation to a war, it occurs after victory, and mostly after an extended conflict. Something which cannot be disproved.

That sounds like losing to me. It seems my statement actually served to clarify further the fact that losing generally fucks you up, so I have no idea why you included that, since it can't serve any purpose besides making you look foolish.

I would also like to point out that your statement is also innaccurate in that economies do not need to be legislated in order to thrive. More often than not, governmental involvement in such issues will damage, rather than strengthen an economy.

Take, for instance, the US after WWII. Thousands of soldiers came hom from years in foxholes, dreaming of the USA. There were ample job opportunities, and plenty of men to fill them; men who were eager to buy and acquire products after so long without them. Nice cars, nice houses, nice food, and so on and so forth. The economic growth of the 50s occured as a result of an eagerness to be gainfully employed coupled with an eagerness to purchase material goods, not because of any legislation.

It was a valiant effort, but don't grasp at straws, especially ones that don't exist.

There was this little thing called the 'GI Bill' that helped somewhat, although the effects were more indirect...

Also, the primary effect that WW2 had on the US economy was to help pull it out of the Depression. The new government spending helped to jumpstart the economy, and in that fashion, the war provided a positive stimulus.

As was mentioned elsewhere, however, it helped that the US wasn't getting bombed.

 

[Frosty]

Originally posted by junior
There was this little thing called the 'GI Bill' that helped somewhat, although the effects were more indirect...

I won't argue with that, especially since I have never claimed otherwise. Ultimately, what I said is still true, the GI Bill just helped it to be true.

Also, the primary effect that WW2 had on the US economy was to help pull it out of the Depression. The new government spending helped to jumpstart the economy, and in that fashion, the war provided a positive stimulus.

Technically federal spending has never been proven to life a flagging economy out of depression, in fact it can often do the opposite. It is always the personal buying/selling of the cvilian population wich accomplishes this. This is precisely why the Soviet Union collapsed. It relied almost entirely on governmental programs to manage the economies of the state, so while the USA's economy was growing because everyone was buying Bimmers, the USSR simply collapsed. A lot of people will say the things like it was the New Deal that lifted us out of the Great Depression, but they're wrong, it was success in World War II, which grew our industrial power and our job base, paving the way for healthy commerce.

As was mentioned elsewhere, however, it helped that the US wasn't getting bombed. [/B]

Technically, it was. The Japanese both bombed us using baloon bombs (which did kill people and damage property,) and shelled us with submarines. Of course the effects of these attacks were miniscule, so in that respect, you are correct.

 

[Skyfire]

Originally posted by junior


Not entirely true.
A short war ('short' being a relative term that varies from country to country and the scope of the war) can be a good way to stimulate an economy as the government puts cash into the economy. The longer the war lasts, however, the less the benefits that arise out of it. War redirects (and destroys) resources that could go toward better use, and this causes the eventual decline of the economy.

That might be true, overall-but in the case of Tolwyn, he knew it would be a short war, thus making the government jumpstart the economy again. (while it may have lead to more wars in the future, in his way of thought...well, I don't know that much about that so... )

However, shorter wars do not make the economy suddenly jump up, nor do "winning longer wars". After all, in short spouts like the US' involvement in WWII and Korea, the government was already into the military machine, as we were supplying others with weapons, etc. This gave a jump, before actually investing within the war-making it a longer termed economic bonus. Yet, longer wars don't help either, as the US suffered a recession during the Cold War, when we should have been doing great, as it would have been a "long war".

I'd tend to agree that good legislation followed by a good work ethic is what tends to keep war economies, and their aftermaths, working well.

 

[junior]

Originally posted by Frosty

Technically federal spending has never been proven to life a flagging economy out of depression, in fact it can often do the opposite. It is always the personal buying/selling of the cvilian population wich accomplishes this. This is precisely why the Soviet Union collapsed. It relied almost entirely on governmental programs to manage the economies of the state, so while the USA's economy was growing because everyone was buying Bimmers, the USSR simply collapsed. A lot of people will say the things like it was the New Deal that lifted us out of the Great Depression, but they're wrong, it was success in World War II, which grew our industrial power and our job base, paving the way for healthy commerce.

But the reason that the US industrial base increased so rapidly was due in large part to the fact that the government was 'hiring' it. The government needed lots of equipment in short order, and paid industry to manufacture it. This in turn caused the industry to hire more individuals, who were then employed in decent paying jobs. They could then take their pay check and purchase items, reinvigorating other areas of the economy, etc...

Don't get me wrong. Something like this won't work on a long term basis. I fully agree that a long term war footing will kill any economy (I'd argue that this is what happened to the USSR). But in this particular set of circumstances (i.e. a depression), it helped to pull the economy back up. Taking an economy that was in excellent condition and going to a war time footing with it might very well kill the economy.

Technically, it was. The Japanese both bombed us using baloon bombs (which did kill people and damage property,) and shelled us with submarines. Of course the effects of these attacks were miniscule, so in that respect, you are correct.

This was mentioned in my comment below (not the one you quoted from). However, its such a trivial matter that I felt bringing it up in this particular post was as unimportant as pointing out that you mispelled balloon.

 

[Frosty]

Originally posted by junior
But the reason that the US industrial base increased so rapidly was due in large part to the fact that the government was 'hiring' it. The government needed lots of equipment in short order, and paid industry to manufacture it. This in turn caused the industry to hire more individuals, who were then employed in decent paying jobs. They could then take their pay check and purchase items, reinvigorating other areas of the economy, etc...

Once again I don't disagree. My position was that legislation, and government spending on federal projects didn't help. It stands to reason that government contracts awarded to manufacturers played a large role. But you see, in that case, they're acting as a business entity rather than a governing entity, which actually reinforces my point.

I think we mostly agree on these things, and minor misunderstandings are making us think otherwise.

 

[Skyfire]

Originally posted by Frosty

But you see, in that case, they're acting as a business entity rather than a governing entity, which actually reinforces my point.

Very true, if your looking from a government standpoint, they did do a pretty bad job. Business wise, it was excellent! Good point.

 

[Raptor]

Originally posted by Col.Dom


RISK

... the name of the game

Remember who said that. It was me. The sig says it all....

Of course, using weapons like the Gen-Select would tend to kill a fair number of your workers. And your enemies retaliating with weapons of mass destruction because you used the Gen-Select on *them* would stuff up both your infrastructure *and* your population. Given that the Border Worlders were able to drive a carrier all the way to Sol system itself, *and* the fact that they had a squadron of Dragons, I wouldn't put it past them to get a few good shots in if it came to all out war. I certainly wouldn't put it past the Kilrathi, given their past willingness to use bio-weapons and Strontium-90 on inhabited worlds.

Best, Raptor

 

[Col.Dom]

I love it when I'm quoted

 

[dacis2]

!
i'm away for 9 days and this springs up?
ok
i
don't
get
what
the
question
is
but
they are
NOT
evil
they
just
want
to
conquer
the universe
with exceptions to
pirates
black lance
and anyother thing i
missed out
i should know
i checked with the behavoural guys at TCIA

 

[TC]

don't do that

TC

 

[Bob McDob]

Originally posted by Frosty No, economies do well after winning really long wars.

Especially if it was a Pyrrhic victory

 

[Penguin]

Originally posted by Bob McDob


Especially if it was a Pyrrhic victory

The war which gave rise to the expression Pyrrhic victory lasted about 4-5 years and did no lasting, or significant damage, to the economies of either combatants, interestingly enough.

 

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by Quarto

the Kilrathi Empire's (or at least, Jukaga's father's) main concern was that Confed was a much more, hmm, solid entity. I may be grasping at straws here, but would this not be a reference to Confed's economy being much stronger because it's not constantly on wartime footing (ie., the US before WWII)?

.

im sorry but i read this and just had to say something, do you know what the US was like b4 wwII, 2 words GREAT Depression. in fact in early 1940 late 1939 the us economy began to nose dive again and only the war and war mobilization prevented a second wave of the depression. Look at germany at the same time, their economy was flourishing under hitler's rule. Look at the US durn ww1, we were in a huge state of expansion because of the war. US economy during the cold war, in general pretty good, a few ups and downs, but in general better than most 40 year periods in the US's history. Lessen, war and war spending= good for the economy

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Napoleon
im sorry but i read this and just had to say something, do you know what the US was like b4 wwII, 2 words GREAT Depression. in fact in early 1940 late 1939 the us economy began to nose dive again and only the war and war mobilization prevented a second wave of the depression. Look at germany at the same time, their economy was flourishing under hitler's rule. Look at the US durn ww1, we were in a huge state of expansion because of the war. US economy during the cold war, in general pretty good, a few ups and downs, but in general better than most 40 year periods in the US's history. Lessen, war and war spending= good for the economy

Lesson - take your time to analyse things, so you won't say anything silly .
1. Germany flourished *until* the war. Then it went down the drain, and not just because of allied bombing.
2. The US was not directly involved in WWI until almost the last moment. They made plenty of money by selling stuff... to both sides. Of course, their trade with Germany was somewhat hampered by the British Navy, but a few merchant marine subs still got through to the US. At any rate, the point here is that the US got a boost in the economy because of the war, but certainly not because they were involved in it - rather, because they weren't.
3. The Cold War, whatever its name may suggest, was not a war. It is irrelevant.

A coherent argument against the US' WWII boost being in spite and not because of the war could probably also be made, but I won't bother. Suffice to repeat Pendell's statement that wars that are good for the economy are the exception, not the rule.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

3. The Cold War, whatever its name may suggest, was not a war. It is irrelevant.

Disagree -- it was not a war with *Russia*. It was dozens of smaller wars between the US and other countries, between Russian and other countries and so forth.

 

[Battler Hawke]

I thought that the cold war is used now to refurred to the time period that the USA and USSR. looked at the other as the enemy and know that the other was going to start ww3.
I know that i am being over simple here but i think that you get what i mean.

 

[Frosty]

Originally posted by Quarto
Lesson - take your time to analyse things, so you won't say anything silly .

Heh...

1. Germany flourished *until* the war. Then it went down the drain, and not just because of allied bombing.

Well, considering that's what he said, I think it's just a teensy bit odd that you're the one offering that "lesson." Read what you're replying to before you reply.

2. The US was not directly involved in WWI until almost the last moment. They made plenty of money by selling stuff... to both sides. Of course, their trade with Germany was somewhat hampered by the British Navy, but a few merchant marine subs still got through to the US. At any rate, the point here is that the US got a boost in the economy because of the war, but certainly not because they were involved in it - rather, because they weren't.

Yeah, well lots of countries weren't involved, but they didn't all do well because of that, which I guess makes you wrong again. What's really annoying to me is that you're deliberately missing the point here just for the sake of arguing with people. The *combat* of war is not what makes money, but the *sales of products* made necessary by the war. So since selling shit to people who are fighting, and selling to your own country because it's fighting are, for all practical purposes, the same thing, you really have no argument here.

3. The Cold War, whatever its name may suggest, was not a war. It is irrelevant.

Incorrect. Many battles were fought over the course of the Cold War, but involving puppet nations like Vietnam. Simply because we did not declare outright war on each other does not mean it didn't exist. We didn't declare war on the Taliban, but nobody doubts we are in a war with them. Ultimately the Cold War boiled down to several military confrontations between two nations, the USA and the Soviet Union, and that says "war" to me.

 

[Battler Hawke]

Originally posted by Frosty

Heh...

Incorrect. Many battles were fought over the course of the Cold War, but involving puppet nations like Vietnam. Simply because we did not declare outright war on each other does not mean it didn't exist. We didn't declare war on the Taliban, but nobody doubts we are in a war with them. Ultimately the Cold War boiled down to several military confrontations between two nations, the USA and the Soviet Union, and that says "war" to me.

thanks for claerifing what i was trying to say (forgive the past week if i made less since than nomal i had finel all week running on 3-4 hours of sleep a night. am going home and sleep this weekend.).

 

[Skyfire]

I'm really going to have to go with Frosty on this one, especially about the Cold War/Sales of arms and supplies during WWII.