Military and Free-Market Capitalism

[Black Wolf]

Except you're ignoring the vast amount of jobs that rely on the military to even exist.

No we won't stop producing for consumers, but we've become very dependent on producing for the federal government, from factory workers to administration to delivery for items like vehicles, plans, and weaponry--its the scale of all that that will suffer. Yeah, people buy guns and ammo, but not a volume even remotely close to the federal government. And no one is buying cruise missiles or rocket launchers or bombs or fighter jets or radar dishes. So on top of slashing so much demand from these industries, you also send thousands into unemployment. And trust me, the scale is HUGE. Absolutely huge. We're talking about tons of ammo, weapons, vehicles and materials produced a day, not to mention maintenance.

And not just those workers--what about the soldiers? You pull 100,000 soldiers (and that's a small number, but we'll start there) home to America TO DO WHAT. There's more unemployed citizens in the United States than jobs available right now, the market hasn't rebounded, the job market isn't growing, so what do all those soldiers do in the middle of a recession? So, what, the government pays them to stay home? Gimme a break.

Its the transition that's becoming frighteningly difficult to comprehend. You can't pull all those jobs out overnight, and yet we can't continue to sustain our worldwide armed forces.

And the problem remains that the Democrats are too scared to reduce military spending or our armed too much because the first sign of trouble that comes around they'll get blamed for being too weak and, God forbid we get attacked again, then any attempt to reduce spending will meet with resistance.

And the Republicans, in part to differentiate themselves starkly from the Democrats, continue to act as war hawks almost unilaterally--they believe in our military as necessary, they consider themselves the part of soldiers and veterans, and just listen to any of them and they all support the military as it is now and will certainly not accept any sort of reduction in forces right now.

But you want info--the easiest most understandable explanation of this mess was in a documentary called Why We Fight. Its a non-partisan analysis--John McCain is interviewed as being opposed to the military industrial complex, although that obviously changed for the Presidential race--of the military industrial complex that points fingers at both parties and explains why we're so reliant on and almost hostage to military spending.

Go watch it. WATCH IT. Or learn about it some other way. Don't come here denying that it exists or that its irrelevant, because its NOT. You obviously have a misunderstanding or simply no understanding of it, and it is a complex creature, but no one denies its important yet destructive nature to our political and economic stability.

Oh, on top of that, you still haven't answered the more important issue--how can allow a free market purity according to libertarianism and yet attempt to regulate it to prevent what has happened from happening? the military industrial complex holds a lot of political sway in this country and they are in part responsible for our inability to stop increasing our armed forces spending (again, noted in the film).

All these problems and difficulties formed out of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. That's what we've had. We're not socialists trying to shed those bonds. No, many of today's modern inequities derive from the problems of unregulated and unmitigated economics, and the history of this country have been against that trend.

This is one motherfucker of a large post in regards to a debate I've had with someone on another forum.

Basically, the point of this post is that our job market is highly dependent on the military. This is coming from a person who, essentially, doesn't agree with the concept of a military. According to him, the reason why Obama was reluctant to pull out of Iraq is because of the effect it may have on our economy. Soldiers coming home to do nothing, and the overall loss in jobs dependent on the industry complex.

- For every job closing, military including, there is always a job opening.

- Assuming that the soldiers pulled from Iraq will just be unemployed without any jobs, they can work as bodyguards. rent-a-cops. Several things that the many people looking for work ALREADY can't do.

But one question I've always wanted to ask people is: how would our economy collapse, if the military, a public institution, were to be limited, as would our spending? How was our dependence on the military a result of free-market capitalism? I can't say I see the connection. Furthermore, what specific industries are dependent on the military?

[2046]

I don't undestand the question?

What do you mean "what do we do with them?"

"We" don't do anything with them. We believe in a government whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights from force and fraud. It is your life--you have a right to act and voluntarily interact with others as you judge best, and you should take responsibility for the consequences (good or bad). The government should have nothing to say about how each of us conducts our economic lives. Their existence is their right and responsibility to support.

To suggest that the only reason the President doesn't pull soldiers out of a warzone where they are taking casualties is because he wants to support a supposed vast section of our economy that relies on wars to exist is contrary to everything capitalism stands for, then to suggest that we exist in a FREE MARKET CAPITALISM system with "unregulated and unmitigated economics" and that the President simply needs wars to support the "unregulated and unmitigated" FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, is such self-contradictory evasion that I wouldn't expect him to be able to grasp the point of the political branch of Ayn Rand's philosophy if it were spelled out to him.

[Grames]

Why do you engage in debates when you do not know your subject?

Soldiers cost the same no matter where they are stationed. Less gas and ammo consumption and less combat zone pay are the sources of saved money.

Consolidation in the military equipment business has greatly reduced the number of jobs in the military-industrial complex.

Many military jobs are tech support in way or another. It is ignorant to think they are all only good for job as mall cops.

This stupid conspiracy theory that wars are caused by business interests goes back to the WW1 "merchants of death" bullshit and it is still humiliating its advocates.

[Black Wolf]

Why do you engage in debates when you do not know your subject?

Soldiers cost the same no matter where they are stationed. Less gas and ammo consumption and less combat zone pay are the sources of saved money.

Consolidation in the military equipment business has greatly reduced the number of jobs in the military-industrial complex.

Many military jobs are tech support in way or another. It is ignorant to think they are all only good for job as mall cops.

This stupid conspiracy theory that wars are caused by business interests goes back to the WW1 "merchants of death" bullshit and it is still humiliating its advocates.

I gave the "mall-cop" suggestion for worst case scenario, really.

And yes, while admittedly the theory that wars are started over is patently ridiculous, it's the only connection between free market capitalism and military use I can possibly think of. Really, if America wanted to acquire more product, they could reduce the amount of regulations and taxes they have, so that entrepeneurs in other countries could bring their products HERE.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Black Wolf

[2046]

Ayn Rand wrote an essay completely destroying the "doesn't capitalism lead to war" question, published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, called "The Roots of War." There's a quick run down of it on this page: http://capitalism.org/faq/war.htm and here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/war.html

[TheAllotrope]

What makes military jobs different from any other type of job? Every gain in an economy can be traced back to unemployment - mechanization, specialization of labor, improved materials, etc all temporarily reduce employment. What's important is that 1) the net amount of wealth has gone up and 2) the people displaced have alternatives. If we stop wasting resources, we have economic gains regardless of temporary unemployment of soldiers. Plus, soldiers have lots of jobs available. The engineers can go into construction, the medics can go to hospitals, the hardware technicians can go do their thing at countless firms. If the downsizing was big enough, it might put some military contractors out of business, but it's important to consider what they're doing - a tank that isn't used is a waste of steel, and more importantly, engineers' time. Those engineers could be designing other things. The key point is that each person's time would be put to a more valuable use. (Not that military is pure waste...we're presumably only talking about the "surplus" personnel here)

On a more fundamental level, soldiers have no right to taxpayer money than the local mom-and-pop store. They get their money by providing a service on mutually agreeable terms; when the payer stops agreeing, the trade stops. Government doesn't need to do anything to support them.

I do find it somewhat amusing that he equates free markets with the "military industrial complex" holding government in its pocket. And the fact that he packages all Republicans as 100% pro-military-spending. The line about Democrats getting blamed I'm more sympathetic to, just because military needs are something you can't chronically or substantially underestimate, but it still sounds like a terrible justification.

Does this guy seriously believe that in times of economic trouble there is a benefit to having some segment of the population idle/unproductive? I think that claim (and its twin, about soldiers needing something to do) can be dismissed out of hand. Or maybe he thinks the New Deal was just wonderful and took us out of the Depression, in which case you'd have quite an uphill battle convincing him that the Depression was caused by, and remedied by, monetary (not fiscal) factors.

[Black Wolf]

What makes military jobs different from any other type of job? Every gain in an economy can be traced back to unemployment - mechanization, specialization of labor, improved materials, etc all temporarily reduce employment. What's important is that 1) the net amount of wealth has gone up and 2) the people displaced have alternatives. If we stop wasting resources, we have economic gains regardless of temporary unemployment of soldiers. Plus, soldiers have lots of jobs available. The engineers can go into construction, the medics can go to hospitals, the hardware technicians can go do their thing at countless firms. If the downsizing was big enough, it might put some military contractors out of business, but it's important to consider what they're doing - a tank that isn't used is a waste of steel, and more importantly, engineers' time. Those engineers could be designing other things. The key point is that each person's time would be put to a more valuable use. (Not that military is pure waste...we're presumably only talking about the "surplus" personnel here)

On a more fundamental level, soldiers have no right to taxpayer money than the local mom-and-pop store. They get their money by providing a service on mutually agreeable terms; when the payer stops agreeing, the trade stops. Government doesn't need to do anything to support them.

I do find it somewhat amusing that he equates free markets with the "military industrial complex" holding government in its pocket. And the fact that he packages all Republicans as 100% pro-military-spending. The line about Democrats getting blamed I'm more sympathetic to, just because military needs are something you can't chronically or substantially underestimate, but it still sounds like a terrible justification.

Does this guy seriously believe that in times of economic trouble there is a benefit to having some segment of the population idle/unproductive? I think that claim (and its twin, about soldiers needing something to do) can be dismissed out of hand. Or maybe he thinks the New Deal was just wonderful and took us out of the Depression, in which case you'd have quite an uphill battle convincing him that the Depression was caused by, and remedied by, monetary (not fiscal) factors.

Lol. I love that part of his post

"Democrats don't want to do anything about spending because they'd be called weak"

So? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose? Standing up to those evil, evil republicans is not weak. Refusing to do so because you're afraid of being CALLED weak is weak.

Republicans call you weak. So what? Liberals have got big media and Jon Stewart. Republicans got AM Radio. The fuck are they going to do?

[Sev]

On a more fundamental level, soldiers have no right to taxpayer money than the local mom-and-pop store. They get their money by providing a service on mutually agreeable terms; when the payer stops agreeing, the trade stops. Government doesn't need to do anything to support them.

and what if a soldier gets severely wounded in combat? according to your 'agreement', does the 'trade' stop after the war, or does the government need to continue supporting the disabled soldier?

war is not as cut 'n dry as your terms and conditions make it out to be. a soldier is making an educated choice to join the military during a time of war, and knows the risks involved. but the state also has a responsibility to see a soldier to recovery after they come home from a combat zone with injuries. when the state sends a soldier to combat, they take responsibility for all reasonable actions he takes. it's a responsibility shared by the soldier and the state. it's part of the 'trade'