The Real Reason We Rushed To Another War ::: Those in charge are gambling with OTHER people's money.

[kpete]

WEDNESDAY, APR 6, 2011 09:30 ET
The real reason we rushed into (another) war
The influence of the rich extends far beyond economic and fiscal policy
BY NED RESNIKOFF


....................



.......... those in charge are gambling with other people's money. In the past month, both Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum have written solid pieces noting that the policy preferences of the poor and middle class have ceased to matter at all to either major American party. But whereas Drum and Klein addressed only how the outsize political influence of the rich affects economic and fiscal policy, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted that it also distorts how we go to war. In a recent piece for Vanity Fair, he wrote:
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105


Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military -- the reality is that the "all-volunteer" army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window.



In other words: The more powerful the rich have become, the more they've shifted the cost of war downward. And because the interests of the rich are effectively the only interests now being represented in government, politicians have no incentive to avoid policies that exert pressure on the middle and lower classes. For the people in charge, war has gotten cheaper than ever.

......................

Because no matter how the conflict in Libya ends, the rich will still be the only meaningful political constituency in this country. War costs them little. And until that changes, we can look forward to a continual state of war at the expense of everyone else.

more:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/06/libya_war_class_resnikoff/index.html

[rfranklin]

1. Isn't this what feudalism and royal families was like?

The peasants working to pay for the wars and keep the the royalty swathed in fine furs. Gated communities for the rich protected by mercenaries, etc.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. At least in those days the rich were obligated to strap on their armor

and ride out in front of the peasants.

Today the new feudalism doesn't even make that requirement.

IOW, we are worse off now (relatively speaking) than we were in the dark ages.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[patrice]

3. This has been true at least since the inception of the Rothschild dynasty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs&feature=related

"History" is what we call the competition between private money vs. public money. War is the most notable manifestation of hostile take-overs within this meta-meta-financial milieu.