Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I posit that all wars are initiated by bad people.
While I generally agree with you on this it is a moral judgement. Not what I was thinking.

I don't think it borders on the tautological - the definition of what we meant by economics was "assumed", I agree, and never truly defined.

To define it too narrowly would be problematic because it would become so exclusionary as to become meaningless.

To define it too broadly, I agree, would also make it meaningless.

But I think it is reasonable to assume that war is a very usual way of subjugating some other group of people. Their subjugation usually brings about "economic" (something that can be translated into money) benefits such as the enhancement of wealth via enslavement, direct or indirect control of the processes of production and the dictation of rules of economic relationships and behavior.

I suspect one could ask a broader question:
What good does political control do if it does not carry with it economic benefit?

"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce

"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky