Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: You know what's WORSE than mass murder? [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)124. I don't either, but it's the business plan for our future.
Scholar. Sage. Pro-business. Big ideas of how to make a killing heh heh heh from academia.
The Pitfalls of Peace
The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014
The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.
An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.
The world just hasnt had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but todays casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.
Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nations longer-run prospects.
It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not todays entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.
War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.
SNIP...
Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you dont get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but its something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0
The guy seems to specialize in Big Ticket themes:
Just when I thought, maybe, we had reached bottom and were ready to bounce up -- I discovered there may be no bottom -- for me and the large part of the 99-percent.

Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has seen the future and it looks bleak for most of us. Thankfully, those at the top, though, are in for some more good times. He spoke about his findings with NPR's Steve Inskeep. I almost dropped my smartphone into my coffee while texting during rush hour, listening to the report this morning, I was so steamed.
Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse
by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM
Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:
"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."
It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.
SNIP...
Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.
CONTINUED with link to the audio...
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse
For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, we can't afford that now, obviously.
Oh, the good news is the 1-percent may swell to a 15-percent "upper middle class" while the rest of the middle class goes the other way. Gee. That sounds eerily familiar. Oh..."Commercial interests are very powerful interests" uttered same press conference where Smirko said, "Money trumps peace." Pretty much always the on-message 24/7/366 for most of the last century.
Tyler Cowen, man of the Final Hours.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
228 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Yes, we know because she is perfect as we all well know and has never done wrong.
LiberalArkie
Jun 2016
#7
Which makes her subsequent actions as a Secretary of State all the more questionable.
Octafish
Jun 2016
#89
gotta love that bernie guy voting to pay for all this killing every year, year after year nt
msongs
Jun 2016
#3
What grief process is that? I am continuing to work on getting progressives elected
Live and Learn
Jun 2016
#160
and Sanders voted to keep the troops in Afghanistan also. However, it isn't as vile as this OP who
still_one
Jun 2016
#103
From my point of view, you are wrong. Now, immediately, is the time to politicize this
floppyboo
Jun 2016
#179
Right now the Democrats don't have the majority in both house of Congress, so I
still_one
Jun 2016
#192
with a bill you need Congress. The question is could he do an executive action?
still_one
Jun 2016
#190
War is mass murder on an epic scale. At least one candidate apparently doesn't get that. nt
Live and Learn
Jun 2016
#4
You mean the onew that haven't been used. Betting Hillary will find a way to use them. nt
Live and Learn
Jun 2016
#10
Oh so its ok to build weapons of mass destruction and still remain holy as long as you don't
workinclasszero
Jun 2016
#15
Are you saying Hillary wouldn't want these? These were being built with or without Bernie,
Live and Learn
Jun 2016
#19
I can't find it now. I thought back when Charlie Hebdo suspect said Abu Ghraib made him attack.
Octafish
Jun 2016
#214
Bernie said he would continue to use drones. Just that he would do it better. i bet Obama felt the
bettyellen
Jun 2016
#100
There's no comparison to what Sec. Clinton is reported to have done with drones.
Octafish
Jun 2016
#193
How are we supposed to talk about it, other than to condemn the illegal drone strikes
Hydra
Jun 2016
#219
My momma use to always say "Turn tragedy into political opportunism before the bodies are identified
qdouble
Jun 2016
#17
do these two things really need to be compared - one being "worse" than the other?
DrDan
Jun 2016
#22
Three days. 72 hours. 0.42 Weeks. 0.09863 Months. 4320 Minutes. 259200 Seconds. *
NurseJackie
Jun 2016
#44
The poster has a history of linking to homophobic conspiracy theorist writers...
SidDithers
Jun 2016
#92
Yeah, I don't knwo why Bernie voted for Afghanistan...bad decision Bernie. nt
Demsrule86
Jun 2016
#34
Yeah, because a few words on a computer screen may remind people not to kill one another in war.
Octafish
Jun 2016
#51
+ a million. A trifecta of being tasteless, tone deaf and absolutely disgusting
Number23
Jun 2016
#130
I didn't order an illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Octafish
Jun 2016
#97
Yeah. I'm trying to stop wars for profit and Dr Hobbitstein is pointing out my hypocrisy.
Octafish
Jun 2016
#64
nope, that isn't what he is saying. He is saying you are using the tragedy in Florida in a not so
still_one
Jun 2016
#101
Congratulations on yet another mindless comparison based on absolutely ...
MrMickeysMom
Jun 2016
#114
''Politics'' being how the wars just keep going and going, no matter who we elect.
Octafish
Jun 2016
#196
War is mass murder, I've taken a verbal beating for saying that here over the years.
Rex
Jun 2016
#108
How DARE you!!! I had friends wounded last night, and friends who lost loved ones
ashtonelijah
Jun 2016
#137
SHAME ON YOU--YOU USE THIS HORRIBLE EVENT TO DISS THE PRESUMPTIVE DEMOCRATIC
riversedge
Jun 2016
#145
Not as wildly misleading as your post defending Bush, a warmonger like his father and grandfather.
Octafish
Jun 2016
#225
Who's lying, anigbrowl? You wrote Bush really meant something other than making money off war...
Octafish
Jun 2016
#227
Are you under the impression that Sanders is a pacifist who will pull back all US troops?
brooklynite
Jun 2016
#221