A very interesting question I think. People seem to ignore the underlying question of who is actually profiting so long as the economy is actually doing well. Of course, this wellbeing of economy is only short term relief and is inevitably followed by depression.
Lets have a look.
World War I.
JP Morgan and Company (large investment bank, controlling most of the railroads in America at the time, controlling Du Pont, Bethlehem Steel, Morgan-Guggenheim Utah Copper, International Harvester, and so on, and so on) got around President Wilson's stance of neutrality by selling to him the idea of giving the French and English loans so that they could buy American goods. Then Morgan persuaded the British and French to appoint Morgan as sole purchasing agent for the, in time, $3 billion dollars of war materials. Of course these contracts were directed to Morgan controlled corporations: DuPont went from revenues of $25 million in 1914 to $131 million in 1915, United States Steel from $23 million in 1914 to $271 million in 1916, and so on and so on.
By 1917 the Allies owed American bankers $1.5 billion and were at the limit of their credit. On the battlefields the armies were nearly on their knees - very bad news for Morgan and associates because if the British and French lost, then that $1.5 billion wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on. Morgan, through President Wilson asked congress to go to war, which was agreed. All this 6 months prior to the Lusitania sinking.
Of the $9.4 billion dollars of taxpayers money lent by the US government to the British and the French, those governments received exactly 0. Every penny went to the owners of American industries. So, in brief, what actually happened was that money was simply transferred from the people of the country to the richest families. I could go on detailing how the War Industries Board, which spent public funds of $10 billion per year, was stacked with Morgan controlled companies directors. I could also go into details of how this board approved spending 3 times the going rate on copper, how $1 billion contracts for shells were never delivered, and so on. Anybody who wants the names/figures, let me know, and I'll pm them to u, this post is getting too long.
World War II
Du Pont (associated with Morgan) supplied trucks to Hitler's war machine, through Du Pont controlled GM. As did Ford. Standard Oil (now Exxon) supplied gas and rubber, often at better rates than those supplied to the US. International Telephone and Telegraph built 'switchboards, telephones, alarm gongs, buoys, air raid warning devices, radar equipment and 30,000 fuses per month for artillery shells used to kill AMerican and British troops. ITT owned nearly a third of Focke-Wulf company, maker of the devastating FW190 fighter airplane. After the war ITT sued and received compensation from the American public for wartime damage done to Focke-Wulf plants. GM and Ford did the same.
Current Iraqi War
Dick Cheney, current vice president, 'worked' for 5 years as CEO of Halliburton Company, we all know who they are. When Cheney retired from one form of service to the firm and attempted to be elected to another, as vice president, the compnay gave him £33.7 million 'retirement' gift. Then in 2000, the company gave a further $7.6 million in stock options which he wasn't entitled to, then a further $26.1 million in stock options, out of the goodness of their heart. Would this have anything to do with the $7 Billion Restore Iraqi Oil (ROI) contract awarded to Halliburton, with no other tenders?
Who else is profiting from the Iraqi war? Well 50% of America's disgressional spending goes on defense contracts. Carlisle group is the 11th biggest defense contractor in the US and are partly owned by the Saudi princes and the Bin Laden family. Obviously, with war, then defense spending is going to go up even more, and profits will soar.
So in brief, who profits from wars? The rich and powerful owners of multinational corporations.
Who suffers from wars? Your everyday joe, they are sending their tax money to the rich and powerful, fighting and dying for the rich and powerful in the wars started by the rich and powerful. The people who live in the war torn countries who lose loved ones, peace of mind, land, etc, etc.
Peace,
D
Good topic, but I fear that it may be too in depth to thoroughly debate here.
The Cheney-Haliburton-Iraq war link is shocking and scary. I looked into this a while ago and that is one point I will agree with you on. If a movement came about asking Cheney to resign due to conflicting interests, I think I would support it.
Now, asking who benefits from war? I think it is beyond what I can write here. In short, yes, companies with government contract benefit greatly. But don't the workers they hire when they get awarded the contracts? Doesn't the construction company that gets hired by the DOD contractor to build new factories, etc. When a company gets a contract for say $7 billion, that isn't $7 billion of profits the CEO gets to go out and spend on a new house. That's money that goes to that company and spent on wages, materials, sub-contractors. A large contact going to an American company is good for alot more than just that company. It generates wages and and consumer spending more taxes then more contracts then more wages then more consumer spending and creates a nice little cycle of economic growth. 😵
Another issue, You propose that war is bad for everyone involved at the ground level. Using WWII, is not a good example here. I would imagine France, England, Australia, Austria, etc didn't mind too much when the US declared war on Germany and awarded some big goverment contracts to suppliers. I wan't there, but I don't think they minded us too much coming on their soil either. More recently, ask a Kuwaiti sometime what they think about the US conducting a war on their soil. Most of them didn't mind to say the least.
By 1917 the Allies owed American bankers $1.5 billion and were at the limit of their credit. On the battlefields the armies were nearly on their knees - very bad news for Morgan and associates because if the British and French lost, then that $1.5 billion wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on. Morgan, through President Wilson asked congress to go to war, which was agreed. All this 6 months prior to the Lusitania sinking.In fact the Lusitania was sunk in 1915.
The rest of your post is very interesting though.
Originally posted by Saint NickGood points about the $7 billion not being profits for the CEO, etc. But surely that is only the case where the tendering process is fair and transparent, with multiple companies fighting each other with competing bids, ie: each trying to put in the lowest bid that they believe they can do the work for, ie: bringing the price down for the tax payer.
When a company gets a contract for say $7 billion, that isn't $7 billion of profits the CEO gets to go out and spend on a new house. A large contact going to an American company is good for alot more than just that company. It generates wages and and consumer spending more taxes then more contracts then more wages then more consumer spending and create ...[text shortened]... liers. I wan't there, but I don't think they minded us too much coming on their soil either.
Look at the 'Sons of RIO', which was brought about due to the uproar over the tendering process (or lack of) for RIO. This was promised to replace the $7 billion contract with 2 more contracts. This turned out to be even more corrupt, with corruption evident up and down the ladder, and only ended up awarding Halliburton contracts worth a further $1.2 billion. The word replace is a complete misnomer, as none of the original $7 billion contract was taken from Halliburton.
And surely contracts should be more closely monitored, like the example of paying 3 times the going rate for copper in WWI, $1 billion of shells going missing. Halliburton announced at the House Government Reform Committee hearing on July 22 that all work had been completed in getting oil production back to prewar levels. Why then the award of a further $1.2 billion to do the same work, which they'd already announced (Cheney and Stoney Cox, Halliburton's RIO program director also testified the same) completed?
Also, your points about generating wages and consumer spending is a good one. But do you not accept that all wars are followed by depression? What happens when the factories are no longer needed? What about when the contracts all dry up? What about the record defecits that Bush is bringing about? I'll admit, this war may be slightly different in that it looks like America are in Iraq to stay (well, until the oil dries up anyway) so 'rebuilding' contracts will probably be ongoing for quite a while. Also the reward for this war in exchange for the countless lifes wasted, is, as we all know, the second largest oil reserve in the world, which, under u.s. control should provide the grounds for a stable economy for the foreseeable future. Obviously, morals don't normally come into discussions of economics.
I still think that war is bad for your everyday Joe. I apologise if you understood my remark to mean, America going to war is bad for everyone. I don't think you are trying to say that France enjoyed being under Nazi rule for years, that the British enjoyed weeks at a time in bomb shelters, Australia enjoyed the threat of being invaded by the Japanese, which was so close that they had drawn up emergency plans for everybody to move to the south east of the country? Correct me if I'm wrong.
D
Australia enjoyed the threat of being invaded by the Japanese, which was so close that they had drawn up emergency plans for everybody to move to the south east of the country? Correct me if I'm wrong.Correct that Australia had a line drawn across the middle of it that would have had everyone move south if Japan invaded. Now Australia lives in increased terror at having supported USA invasion of Iraq, based on USA lies, without enjoying the billions of dollars USA has for Homeland Security.
D[/b]
Originally posted by STANGCorrect me if I'm wrong, cos I am a bit sketchy on this, but wasn't part of the deal in which America came to Australia's (and New Zealand's) rescue a contract stating that anytime America went to war afterwards, Australia and New Zealand had to send troops, hence Ozzies and Kiwis fighting in Vietnam and Iraq. As far as I know, this contract has no time limit.
Now Australia lives in increased terror at having supported USA invasion of Iraq, based on USA lies, without enjoying the billions of dollars USA has for Homeland Security.
I could be spouting complete crap in this one as its only something I heard a couple of times in Oz and NZ.
D
Apparently not part of the deal. Anyway, what did USA save us from when we face losing so much more within the next couple of generations ... and America "saved us" by killing over 70,000 people in Hiroshima and then killing over 70,000 more in Nagasaki a few days later. I don't think it was worth it. Maybe you do. Now days there's other people blowing up bombs that also think it's worth it.
Originally posted by STANGYou make it sound like Australia has thousands of troops in Iraq. While I appreciate your country's assistance don't make it sound like you have a couple of divisions in Iraq. I'm sure the WWII soldiers in "OZ" thought the A bombs were worth it. Saved a bunch of their lives just like it saved a bunch of American soldiers lives.
Apparently not part of the deal. Anyway, what did USA save us from when we face losing so much more within the next couple of generations ... and America "saved us" by killing over 70,000 people in Hiroshima and then killing over 70,000 more in Nagasaki a few days later. I don't think it was worth it. Maybe you do. Now days there's other people blowing up bombs that also think it's worth it.
Originally posted by RagnorakHow about the millions Teresa Heintz-Kerry makes selling Ketchup to the government. I bet Kerry has stock in Haliburton also.
Good points about the $7 billion not being profits for the CEO, etc. But surely that is only the case where the tendering process is fair and transparent, with multiple companies fighting each other with competing bids, ie: each trying to put in the lowest bid that they believe they can do the work for, ie: bringing the price down for the tax payer.
L ...[text shortened]... plans for everybody to move to the south east of the country? Correct me if I'm wrong.
D
Originally posted by RBHILLYou also fail to mention how some players for Iraq said how they wish they were fighting the Americans in Najaf instead of playing soccer. You can cheer for those ungrateful bastards if you want. I sure as heck won't.
We set the Iraq people free, that is what matters.
And yes we lost some people and thoughs are the real Heros not the ones that came back.
And Iraq got to play Soccer in the Olympics and almost beat my Italy for the Bronzes. I am Itailian and when for the Iraqies.
Originally posted by RagnorakThanks for recognizing my points. Too many people won't do that.
Good points about the $7 billion not being profits for the CEO, etc. But surely that is only the case where the tendering process is fair and transparent, with multiple companies fighting each other with competing bids, ie: each trying to put in the lowest bid that they believe they can do the work for, ie: bringing the price down for the tax payer.
L ...[text shortened]... plans for everybody to move to the south east of the country? Correct me if I'm wrong.
D
Anyhow, I'm not going to debate Haliburton with you..there's not enough information publicly available about it to accurately debate it and I feel it spins far from the debate of war itself. I do think there may have been some wrong doing with the Haiburton contracts, but am waiting for more info before passing judgement.
Yes, contracts can and need to be more closely monitored. At the same time, we can't stop giving them.
Hmmm, war is always followed by depression? Not sure where you got that. There was the Great Depression of the 1950's..no. How about the Great Depression of the 1970's...no. I remember now, the Great Depression occured long after WWI and before WWII. A mild recession after a major war does occur due to reorganization of resources, but industry and economy usually bounce back stronger than ever within a few years (i.e. The U.S. in the 1950's).
The factories normally switch to the private sector. There are many companies that came from producing war products for the goverment then diversified after a war. Take a look at Dupont, Harley-Davidson, Jeep and Volkswagon for example (Volkwagon is not American, but will surprise you).
I think you are discounting the 'human' benefit of war. Yes, tens of thousands have died in Iraq during America's invasion and occupation, but we removed a dictator. This dictator was responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people during his rule. It seems that while this war may cost the lives of 50,000 before it is over, it could save the lives of another million because Saddam is removed. Sounds like pretty decent justification to me.
WWII- I was being sarcastic about the French wanting Germany in their country, Australia wanting Japan to invade. I know sarcasm does nit come across well in forums. Let me say it another way. Removing Germany from France, preventing Japan from invading Oz, preventing an invasion of England, liberating Australia, liberating the prisoners of Auschwitz are all benefits of war. Liberating the prisoners of the German concentration camps was well worth the contracts that were needed to due so, regardless if they were awarded unfairly or overpriced. Surely, you can see this.
Originally posted by STANGnon sequitur
Correct that Australia had a line drawn across the middle of it that would have had everyone move south if Japan invaded. Now Australia lives in increased terror at having supported USA invasion of Iraq, based on USA lies, without enjoying the billions of dollars USA has for Homeland Security.
Originally posted by STANGof course it wasn't worth it in your eyes; it would have been much better if there had been over 100,000 Americans killed in an invasion of Japan.
Apparently not part of the deal. Anyway, what did USA save us from when we face losing so much more within the next couple of generations ... and America "saved us" by killing over 70,000 people in Hiroshima and then killing over 70,000 more in Nagasaki a few days later. I don't think it was worth it. Maybe you do. Now days there's other people blowing up bombs that also think it's worth it.