> On Oct 30, 2024, at 1:02 PM, jay lyon via groups.io
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Another factor infuriating voters and attributable to the Democrats is
> inflation. Their huge war spending, while boosting economic activity, raises
> prices.
Inflation started during the first two months of the Democratic-Party
presidency. The policies of a US presidential administration historically do
not produce large, near-term economic effects AFAICT. The US economy is a force
independent of, uncontrolled by, and much greater than the US government. Apart
from times of crises and drastic government intervention, US presidents'
policies are long-term if not altogether ineffective. President Clinton's
(1992-2000) policies had the greatest impact eight years after he left office:
Clinton's economic "reforms" were arguably a leading cause to the Great
Recession of 2008. Today, I think it is the US economy that produced US
inflation and not a government in the hands of the Democratic Party. There are
very good arguments that disruptions to global supply chains are the greatest
contributors to current price hikes and monetary inflation.
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/08/07/what-are-the-economics-of-war.html
> As war ramps up, production and investment are diverted from butter to guns.
> A dearth of civilian goods can raise the cost of necessities like food and
> housing. Wars like Russia/Ukraine and Israel’s directly affect the cost of
> commodities like natural gas and oil, partly because of sanctions placed on
> Russia. Detours to avoid attacks from Yemen increase shipping costs.
I think Gaelle Legrand got it wrong in that video. For example, the post-WWII
US had produced both "guns and butter" defined as a rising standard of living,
on average, supported by expansionary government social programs (retirement,
medical, children and senior safety nets), and accompanied by military
spending that dwarfs the rest of the world. This large, unproductive waste of
the vast US military is necessary to sustain demand in an economy that
experiences crises of overproduction, according to some Marxist analysis. This
becomes less sustainable as the US social surplus shrinks.
Like the idea that a political party's policies can cause inflation from day 1,
Gaelle Legrand's "economics of war" doesn't consider the big picture. Legrand
ignores imperialism, which is sort of what war spending is all about. There are
much different consequences for imperial, sub-imperial, colonial and
neocolonial countries. This might help explain the fact that all countries do
not experience war spending in the same or even similar ways. Some steal
resources or gain other global benefits over others and fund their war spending
from their booty; some countries are generous social-democratic societies that
finance their social spending, in part, by producing munitions for other global
war market, and some countries suffer under bombardment.
Mark
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#33256): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33256
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109282656/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
