Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News "Unintended Consequences of Military Intervention"

If you don't know by now then I can't help you. Sorry

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?

Some unintended consequences might be the costs to help those who suffer from maimings and PTSD after serving in wars to further the goals and profits of Corporate America. And showing just how little we "support our troops". The aftermath of war seems to lift the veil and show the ugly underbelly.

I don't know by now because you are unpredictably inconsistent on the matter. It's kind of like trying to add fractions without converting to a common denominator first. Pretending that I am stupid doesn't magically allow the fractions to add up.

I can only conclude you do not, in fact, know the difference. I estimate that about half of the posts on your "intended consequences of war" twist in this thread have been about trying to unravel which you mean between an absolute or a qualified position on economics being the cause of war. If you can't see that your position vacillates freely between two very different claims, then I suppose it is pointless to try and discuss it with you.

I'm not sure, as I've said, that I disagree with the premise that "most wars (or 'almost all' or 'all') have an economic genesis," but I wonder if we can define it properly to have meaning. Economist will argue that "all" human interaction has an economic (tit-for-tat) basis, and can be analyzed as such. (Anyone read Freakonomics?) They see this more as a means of analyzing motivations, though, than as a causus belli, per se. That, by the way, is how I would understand it. One could say that "we started the Iraq war to obtain oil" or one could say it was to "establish freedom" - and, of course, a society that is freer (economically-speaking) will make more of their resources available to the "world market." Either way it has an economic impact, good and ill. Is it economic freedom or exploitation?

You'never make it as a Republican economist with that attitude, Bub!

Maybe that's why the almost constant calls from the GOP political strategy recruiters stopped about two minutes after my post?

Probably!

Actually, Scout suggested something along those lines way back somewhere on this thread. I believe the case could be made that all human interaction has some economic underpinning (and one could certainly make the case that human society began with economic interests in mind).
I just thought that it would be more difficult (in the sense of more laborious) to make that case although, I don't disagree with it.
It seems to me that when such divergent and opposite poles of the political spectrum as Ludwig von Mises and a socialist agree on the same general principle, there is something to be said as far as looking into it goes.
That's all I stated and all I intended to discuss. It isn't a game of one-upsmanship or a test of stamina. Merely an attempt at discussion.