how else are they going to resolve their differences? talking about it? ugh no of course not

Let's talk economics. I love economics. I'll have to keep it short though because I'm on a blackberry and I'm getting blisters on my thumbs.

War absorbs resources. In terms of normal products it reduces the aggregate supply by reducing the ammunt which can physically be produced. That causes monstorous ammounts of infation. Aggregate demand falls as a result of death which further shrinks the economy. As a result of lack of labour, a country is unable to singlehandedly maintain production of arms for an extended period of time as would be required by your proposal. Therefore it demands imports, and that shrinks the economy by reducing the cash in the circlar flow and this area is even more damaged by the inability of a country to produce the same number of exports while at war as in a period of peace. It can only be economically feasable to be in a state of constant war if you have an economy with vast ammounts of unasigned resources and large unemployment. It may have been possible 500 years ago but today it would essentially require all the countries in the worlld to agree to simultaneously liquidate their assets and massacre 90 percent of their population. This seemns unlikely.

Except for that the barbarian you attack, who has the meat, would have to be a better hunter than you to be able to catch food, while you couldn't. So he's probably a better fighter than you, and you would get an axe to the face instead.

[Shocked rantings of a belittled economist]No need for economics?

How very dare you? Economics always applies to everything. You cannot have any sort of sentient life without some degree of economics. You want more than you have but you can only have so much. Even if you're the only person on the planet I can graph your production possibility frontiers and identify your optimum output, whether you're farming or pillaging or banking.[/ranting]


Now then, am I misinterpreting you completely or are you basically saying that life was better when we were cavemen?

War the best route?

Always.

Quote from Zed

[Shocked rantings of a belittled economist]No need for economics?

How very dare you? Economics always applies to everything. You cannot have any sort of sentient life without some degree of economics. You want more than you have but you can only have so much. Even if you're the only person on the planet I can graph your production possibility frontiers and identify your optimum output, whether you're farming or pillaging or banking.[/ranting]


Now then, am I misinterpreting you completely or are you basically saying that life was better when we were cavemen?

lulz.
I'm essentially saying that life was better then. The world was better off, we were getting by as best we could, in a way that was good. And as for wanting more, (this also gets to Devours comment) If you want more, take more. And if you're the small guy that wants to throw the axe to the face of the big guy, THATS LIFE, THE BIG GUY WILL KICK YOUR ASS AND TAKE YOUR SHIT. but that's what I mean - If the one who gathered the meat is a better hunter than you, then he is the best suit to survive, and therefor he will and you won't. Ever heard of "Survival of the fittest"? (a.k.a Survival of the best fit to the environment)

If people don't benefit enough from what they produce, ie. it gets stolen most of the time, they will not bother to produce. Vikings could get away with it because there were so few of them so they only took a small amount of what was produced, but if everyone did it nothing would ever get made and the same resources would go round and round until the biggest person owned a load of broken second hand baguettes which he would then eat and then the human race would have nothing and we'd die out..

When we leave Iraq the Middle East is going to be more messed up than it already is.

That has NOTHING to do with the current chain of debate.

:l

Quote from Stephen95

When we leave Iraq the Middle East is going to be more messed up than it already is.

That's not our problem? The middle East has always, and will always be fucked up, whether america is there or not.

Quote from Jeremy

That's not our problem? The middle East has always, and will always be fucked up, whether america is there or not.

I will not be troll bait.
I will not be troll bait.
I will not be troll bait.

I don't think I'm trolling. Lol. And how do you not agree? I thought you would be totally with that. I'm saying we shouldn't be there.

Quote from Jester

fighting gets rid of hunger, poverty, and disease, because with more fighting, there will be less people to feed, clothe, and care for.

also, with less technology, sure infections and such will be a lot worse, but we wouldn't have all the diseases and health problems caused by today's technologies. We would also not be overweight due to strenuous training.

Maybe, but innocent constructors, farmers, doctors and ultra-brainy labrats who develop the technology are victims of war, no matter what it may be about

Quote from Jeremy

That's not our problem? The middle East has always, and will always be fucked up, whether america is there or not.

You just can't trust them. They always have to start a riot over even an alledged rigged political vote. I mean, WTF?