Stiglitz wrote [43] in 2003:
War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times. The second world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth. Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon.
Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy.
Stiglitz has also said that this decade’s Iraq war has been very bad for the economy. See this [44], this [45] and this [46].
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan also said in that war is bad for the economy.
In 1991, Greenspan said that a prolonged conflict in the Middle East would hurt the economy [47].
And he made this point again [48] in 1999:
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
1 comment:
I don't believe it. On second thought, maybe they are right about it not being good for the economy in general.
But the personal economies of some individuals and corporations certainly get better.
Next they will be trying to tell us war is not only NOT profitable, but it is a noble thing to do.
We don't make money on war, we are trying to 'help' others, and at a loss while doing it.
I may not be the smartest guy in the world but I don't believe anything they say.
I think we would have far less wars if a) no money was being made by it and b) if the people starting the wars had to take off their suits and go fight it themselves.
We have been in war(s) for over ten years now. With little to none success. Why?
Because we are noble? We are 'helping' others at a loss, and continue to do so?
Yeah we are losing, but certain groups are making a killing in more ways than one.
Post a Comment