We (The USA) are the death merchants of the world.

“We are the death merchant of the world”: Ex-Bush official Lawrence Wilkerson condemns military-industrial complex - http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/we_...lkerson_condemns_military_industrial_complex/

Wilkerson lamented, "We’ve privatized the ultimate public function: war."

 

Ahhh, Sidney... once again baiting me into political discussion...

I've got mixed feelings on this one.

What has to be recognized is that modern weaponry is a reality, and we can't put the genie back in the bottle. There is strong demand for weaponry, and good incentive for private industry to innovate in these fields. So what should we do? Ban it? ...These companies will just move elsewhere. Impose super tight restrictions? ...again, these companies will just take their money/jobs etc. and leave.

It's a conundrum to be sure. ...but just pointing to it, condemning it, and collectively blaming America is going to do NOTHING.

So what are the practical policy solutions?

 

Policy solutions? How about stopping the practice of inciting war and conflicts just so our economy benefits from it? Artificially created and/or promoted wars to create demand for weaponry.

 

While I agree there is an unholy alliance between government and private arms companies, I think that stating "our economy" is the primary reason motivating conflicts is a bit hyperbolic.

If this were the case, then we wouldn't actually involve ourselves in said conflicts. Spending trillions participating in foreign conflicts is hardly beneficial to the economy...

 

Many do believe that wars spur the economy. It creates jobs and spending. And if you get the public riled up enough, you can really dig in and spend a lot. The actuality doesn't quite line up to this way of thinking, but it's a common thought. Politicians also play the game to stay on the good side of public view. Remember when Bush announced the end of the war? He couldn't have celebrated the end if it didn't start to begin with. And our red blooded society wanted someone to pay.

So what should we do about it? Vote for Bernie?

 

Channeling trillions of dollars of tax payer money to purchase weapons systems certainly improves the pockets of the whole military industrial complex supply chain, doesn't it?

 

The weapon mfgs are not the only ones getting benefits from conflicts. It is a long known fact that rulers of countries who have problems managing domestic issues have created and continue to create foreign threats to channel the unrest of people. Many such ongoing in the world even now. (In order to respect BradM's guidance I don't name any.)

 

I think we're in agreement regarding inciting foreign conflicts. I'm simply contesting your statement that it benefits the economy. While it may benefit a specific section (companies manufacturing & selling arms), overall it is a net loss to the economy. Nothing of value is created (technological innovations notwithstanding), and is hugely over budgeted, resulting in the need to deficit spend, print money, or raise taxes.

The proposed solution of simply "stopping the practice of inciting war and conflicts" is not really addressing the root-cause of government-corporation collusion. How do you propose to stop this incitement? Through voting? In my opinion, as long as the military-industrial complex has the means to influence government foreign policy, electing a new government on a platform of "we're going to stop inciting foreign conflict" is futile, as none of the means or incentives for collusion have been addressed.

Thanks BradM. I appreciate your concerns from a moderator's perspective. To clarify my position, I find such topics relevant, as they deal with broader concepts of economics, incentives, and supply & demand. While these may not be related to quality directly, they are certainly indirectly relevant to business in general.

There is tremendous value (IMHO) to discussing economics, the role of government, and government-corporation relationships, as these are topics that affect us all. These are the concepts from which the regulatory systems that we deal with are born from, and I think it's important to have a frank and open discussion of such topics.

 

For a very interesting view about the true nature of war I recommend reading 1984 by George Orwell.

 

I think this is the second time in these forums we've brought up 1984. ...Orwell never ceases to be relevant!

Curious though: To what extent do you think such machinations are conscious and intentional? In other words, do you think people consciously conspire to create perpetual war as a means of control and political leverage? ...or are people's actions more reflective of an underlying flawed system with misplaced incentives - allowing politicians to make poor decisions whilst actually having good intentions?

 

I think today nobody gets real power unless they ultimately seek power. The days of getting by on good intentions and competence are gone.

 

Nobody said anything about competence...that ship has certainly sailed!

As a matter of fact, I think it is the combination of good-intentions and INcompetence that maintains status quo, and is ultimately problematic.

There are probably a small minority of sociopaths in power, who act purely for personal gain whilst having full knowledge of how detrimental their policies are...but I'm inherently skeptical of the claim that such people are the primary driving force behind perpetual bad policy. In my view, the influence of such people is dwarfed by simple inertia, and preponderance of incompetent/dogmatic (but well-intentioned) decision makers.

 

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions...

Today even good intentions AND incompetence are not enough for getting to the top.