Gold price, page-4518

"Won't go to all your points, but war is The economic machine."

Hi 383, it might surprise you that this viewpoint has been refuted by many respected economists, including Alan Greenspan and even Nobel prize winning economists. They explained that it is based on the "broken window" fallacy. Their quotes:

1. War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times. The second world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth. Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon. Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy.
2. During the decade of the 2000s, DOD budgets, including funds spent on the war, doubled in our nation’s longest sustained post-World War II defense increase. Yet during the same decade, jobs were created at the slowest rate since the Hoover administration. If defense helped the economy, it is not evident.
3. It is ironic that America’s huge military spending is what made us an empire … but our huge military is what is bankrupting us … thus destroying our status as an empire.
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-is-bad-for-the-economy/5417755)

Here's a morsel of info that might tickle atomic pink:

"It may make for bleak reading, but of the 162 countries covered by the Institute for Economics and Peace’s (IEP’s) latest study, just 11 were not involved in conflict of one kind or another...
The IEP’s findings mean that choices are slim if you want to live in a completely peaceful country. The only ones to achieve the lowest score for all forms of conflict were Switzerland, Japan, Qatar, Mauritius, Uruguay, Chile, Botswana, Costa Rica, Vietnam, Panama and Brazil."
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-are-actually-free-from-conflict-9669623.html)

Cheers, R.