Thanks for watching EE nation! ❤️ If you enjoyed, please consider supporting the show on Patreon! 😎 See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more! ➡️ www.patreon.com/EconomicsExplained
When you say that military jobs provide little(or inefficient) value to a market consumer, I think you're undervaluing the complex effects of stability and security. A strong military provides a sense of security both to government-backed currencies and government debt. It also provides social stability(as long as it's not used against the people), ensuring the smooth(and therefore cheaper) transaction of commerce. I'm not arguing that our military is unimprovable, just that it has a very large effect on consumer satisfaction.
The argument regarding technology is not a narrow one. Warfare influences the consumer sector when governments award contracts. This is because war in itself creates massive amounts of competition between nations and companies within a nation. As the old adage goes “competition is the mother of all innovation”, and war is the ultimate competition. It is not just a matter of who gets the most money. It’s a matter of incentive and war is a massive incentive to innovate. While there is competition during peacetime, it is nowhere near the amount during wartime. As warfare gets more complex the technology that goes into it has far more consumer applications. Even if it is not optimized for consumer comfort, military technology tends to put functionality and durability first. If a product is developed solely for profit in a consumer market, it runs the risk of becoming unreliable.
In a time when UA-camrs chase trends and prioritize monetization, I would to like to express my respect to you for choosing genuinely interesting topics, even when they straddle the thin line of UA-cam demonetization. I applaud you sir. Great video, keep up the good work!
I'm not sure where this quote comes from, but I've heard something to the effect of; "In a fight between two, the winner is the third." That's pretty much what happened with the US economy by the end of the war. It wasn't great for the US, but everywhere else suffered much more so the US became a super power in the post war world, a status it used to draw more power and establish the hegemony we live in now.
Yep. That's how war can benefit the economy. By taking more from the others than you've lost. Be it in the war itself or in the newly built post war economy.
Both WW1 and WW2 were to the United State's overall benefit. With the US becoming the world reserve currency after the UK went into debt and got off the gold standard to deal with WW1. Causing the Dollar to overtake the Pound. Along with the fact that the US didn't suffer much if any destruction to its cities etc in both wars.
The Swiss are there to prove you right! Being neutral and selling goods and services for both parties are the best way to deal with war in an economic stand point (but we must remember that economy isn't the only thing that drives humanity forward, so entering a war could have other benefits)
@@marc4770 Not necessarly.Many invretion where first invented for the army.I am not saying that it's a good excuse to kill each others, but it's just a "happy" side effect.
"The purpose of an economy is to increase the standards of living for the participants in that economy, and wars achieve the opposite of this." Enlightened.
@@gabrielonibudo5710 What a stupid comment. That's the same as saying that there's no purpose to human action. Humans act to improve their standard of living. This cannot be debated
war is very weird, you someone become safer by drawing attention to how good you are at defending yourself?? safer or more powerful? Drawing attention is kind of a bad idea if you want to be safe but if you want to project power it seems to make sense. Projecting power means you are at the top of the pecking order, which means the goods come to you first and all things go threw you, nothing happens unless you sanction it.
8:43 Historically military jobs did add value to an economy (in certain situations). The specific example I'm thinking of was with the British Royal Navy from about the time of the Tudors onwards to the end of world war 2. The more sailors they RN (and it's independent contractors, aka privateers) had, the more ships it could sail, the more Spanish treasure ships and ports they could raid, the more money was circulated in the economy, the more need for overseas bases to expand their raids was needed, required the establishment of anchorages, which turned into colonies that started producing commodities like sugar and tobacco (that became more profitable than the raiding and priacy), which needed more sailors to protect their own trade ships from pirates and privateers, and those trader sailing the trade ships wanted to expand their opportunities to trade, so the navy needed to protect them further a field and overawe some of the locals with demonstrations of fire power, which lead to more bases and more colonies, The British military became a service for the insuring the safety of British business overseas and a means of expanding through the overt threat of fire power. In much the same way that was what determined why the Americans were the leading western allied power at the end of world war 2, they had the most military power to shape a geopolitical position that was favourable to themselves and they could use that to ensure their alliance (which would become NATO) had free reign to trade as much as they wanted across the oceans as the US Navy ensured their safety across the ocean. This protection for trade was damn near a bribe to those countries to act as the front line in any world war 3 scenario against the USSR (to contain a potential threat to the US).
I think this misses some major points. Throughout most of human history, warfare was extraordinarily lucrative. Victory on the battlefield was a major source of raw material, capital, land and cheap manpower. In the modern age, military hardware is exceedingly expensive. Moreover, a great deal of wealth is formed of intangible assets which cannot be seized through martial means. War is simply not a profitable prospect in the current era. However, that is not to say that warfare could not become lucrative again, if our conditions radically alter. We are living in a uniquely peaceful period and it would be naïve to think that this will continue in perpetuity.
There are ways a modern war can help an economy in some ways. For example incentives to increase weapons productions can create an advanced engineering generation like Japan in the Korean Civil War. What's important is the risk/reward involved with winning the war.
The reality is actually that war itself was not lucrative. Stealing and/or controlling other people's resources is what was lucrative, whether there was a war or not (hence colonial powers). But even then it's a one-sided win, not good for the "human economy".
Peaceful period for countries invading and selling their resources to its people for profit. People are dying everyday from wars funded by our tax dollars, just because our media won’t report on it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
The United States may have all the money and the scary toys but, historically the US has never really been good at war. We seem to have this stupid idea that high enemy body counts win wars.
The American economy did well post war as it had everyone's gold*, the only industrial country without bombed out factories and a huge global post war need for what it could sell. On top of the huge investment in modern infrastructure that facilitated further growth and improved efficiency.
In my opinion... No body wants to attack USA because it is located so far from main continents... So when USA came to Europe, they had very little risk. There were no planes that could travel long enough and traveled back. And even if USA were losing, they could prepare for counter measure since they are literally separated by 2 oceans except from Soviet which were not even close to mainland US.
Right after the war the USA was so rich that everyone else were like peasants who could not compare. everyone else felt poor apparently and felt bad for being poorer than Americans. Most of the world was quite poor compared to the USA except the allies. They did not like feeling poor one bit because people needed to pay their bills and make a living, loss of infrastructure really put people in poverty, to where trauma and prostitution was common, people who rich before the war were selling themselves just to not starve, very bad aftermath of the war.
tisFrancesfault the funny thing in all of this is how we reference USA as if it is a single force with its own conscious will... when it is a fantasy, an entity, a corpse... there seems to be a disconnect between our perception of reality... because no one is asking themselves who is in control... I ask you who owns the United States of America? If this entity goes through a new president every 4-8 years than that means the president is not in control/owner of the country, and the people are not in control because we did not right the laws that govern us or give our consent... so if you zoom out to the bigger picture you have to wonder what is the end all goal/vision of the USA and who is in control of the game plan and path that it travels? ... my whole point on bringing this up is to reveal the free Masonic occults, the secret societies, the deep state that is the shadow hand engineering our human realities... and that is the ISLAMIC STATE, the UAE UNITED ARABIAN EMIRATES own the UNITED STATES of AMERICA... they use 3rd party representatives to do their dirty work... like the British royal family, who is a loyal puppet of theirs... so when you look at the world, it looks as if England is in control... all while the Sauds hide in their private estates...
Bro I have no idea how the hell are you only still at 333k subscribers when you churn out such high quality content at such regular basis. God damn I salute you bro. Please keep the contents coming
Dude the level of video synchronisation to the subject matter is on another level. It's like you have a video clip for every half a sentence lol. I dunno if I love it or just begrudgingly respect the hustle. The content is outstanding as always, keep it up.
"WAR" "HUH!!!!" "YEAH" "WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR" "EMPLOYING SOME PEOPLE AND FUNDING BIG GOVERNMENT PROJECTS THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT LEAD INTO USEFUL TECHNOLOGY BUT THE MONEY COULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN SPENT BETTER doing this in a way that didn't sacrifice human life, perhaps funding projects between private actors and universities" "UH HAA HAAA HUH" "SAY IT AGAIN Y'ALL"
There is a thing called the millitary industry complex basically almost almost all the money spent on war is pad back since you can sell weapons and taxes all the huge company's that make your weapons
Arguing that spending the money we spent on WWII would have been better spent elsewhere is not an argument against spending during WWII helping to end the Great Depression. After all, we had a full decade of the Great Depression before we entered the war. We clearly had no plans of doing the more effective spending with that money.
10:50 I agree with the general point here but it's really important what you consider innovation. Our current society is spending vast amounts of resources on producing essentially useless goods. Like another competing mail app, another competing social media platform or a 700$ sold-at-loss juice squeezer. All just slightly better, but maybe not even that. These fit under the optimistic view of innovation that you see many take. But these are ultimately very small steps. Even though spending is higher (as you've asserted) you've got more wasted effort because the purpose of that competition is usually to eliminate your opposition or to just win over your competition. The consumer doesn't require a step that's on a scale where it'd significantly improve mankind to actually change who they buy from. Just good enough, which means that every company reaches for all the easy to reach steps instead of finding a way to jump forward. When I've argued with people who think war is good for technological advancement they usually don't point to these trivial innovations you include here. They point to the big advancements you saw during the cold war like advanced material science and basically the countless advantages we now have due to the space race. And when addressing that it's obvious that usually people in peacetime don't try for these ambitious projects. Governments (see: voters) aren't willing to spend. Companies have too much short term focus because they'll likely die otherwise. Even those we consider ambitious companies like Tesla don't really make the large innovations you saw during the cold war. Reusable rockets are of course a strong step. It's far greater than most companies I can think of. But even so it's just one company. In that sense a "slightly better fighter jet" can still be much better money spent because it did something substantial most likely. Even if its target isn't aligned with improving things for people. But undeniably the cost of war or even just international disunity is a large enough cost that it doesn't make sense to strive for that over the status quo. There needs to be a way to generate interest for this kind of project organically because they're so much more important. Now it's not necessarily the case that external pressures like you had in the cold war was the primary reason we see less of what I'd consider genuine innovation now. It's very possible that the resources that are spent just don't reach as far because the problems are harder. Either way I think the first step to solving this (if it is a problem) is to try and measure. Something like where theoretical physics is at in contrast to leading tech in relevant areas would be a measure. edit:formatting
MrSnowman That’s the true tragedy of war, way above that of death or suffering. The true tragedy of war is that it’s the only time when humans achieve their zenith.
I think you significantly overestimate how much resources go into these "useless goods", Facebook only has like 50k employees and they spin 70 billion in ad revenue, that is very efficient use of labor, how much revenue does your employer have per employee? Developing some stupid app is nothing, many of the simpler ones are basically one man jobs to create. And the juicer wasn't an innovation at all, it was just a scam to make off with investors money.
@@aleksandersuur9475 Sure- the M-16 went thru what- half a dozen tiny revisions- and still has a radical low avg stoppage rate relative the other NATO rifles- really, really easy to spend huge sums of military $ for tiny improvements
To be honest if it was just a space race instead of inventing better and efficient ways of killing each other, we would be mining asteroids or harnessing the power of the sun right now. All these billionaires who horde money just for the sake of being branded a billionaire doesn't help either. Humanity is fucked
@@RealVidjag No winter is an overblown myth. It was primarily Soviet tenacity and poor German logistics that defeated the Nazis. In regards to Lend Lease, that is still very much up to date but citing the man who is considered the most knowledgable on the Eastern Front, David Glantz, he believes "the defeat of Nazi Germany would have taken 12 to 18 months longer) had there been no lend lease, make of that what you will.
I think you're missing one of the key aspects of the military technology research. It's government funded, so the resulting technology is more freely available to be exploited by the economy. Private research tends to be kept from general use. Wars also push technology. Yes, it's first case is to win the war, but once a concept is proven then it can be used in other areas. And yes, it would be better if that money could be spent directly on R+D, then the results given away as public goods. But it's more politically acceptable to spend on defense.
i think you miss the point too, "And yes, it would be better if that money could be spent directly on R+D, then the results given away as public goods" no, because the goverment nor the private sector have a reason to spent on R+D, the war make that reason, because if you think about it, why would the goverment or private sector make a missile? that happen in ww2, with the B-1 AND B-2, thanks to that, USA reach the moon, and they are many reasons, the radio is other example, you see private sector only want money, and so they will invest in what makes them more money, imagine tomorrow a new energy is discover, but the renovable companies, and coal, and hidroelectric, dont want to lose money so they dont invest, and the goverment dont see any reason to invest in that, but then came war, and the resources fall quickly, and the infraestructure is damage, and is more cheap and fast to invest in that new energy than reconstruct all the damage infraestructure.
@@TheMaztercom uh? So I'm not saying War doesn't drive Innovation but companies are doing plenty of R&D without the incentive of War. That's how we have most of the consumer goods we have today. Go research Amazon, Google, uber, Apple, Tesla and Virgin Galactic's projects as a start?
@@jonjeskie5234 The R&D that companies are researching, is old tecnology, that they are modifiyng, new tecnologies for example are going very slow, but in a war sceneario, they would be develope much faster, and you have say it, consumer goods, that give them money, so that is the incentive to make it, take for example the plane, in 1913 it was a prototype that work, it was no a great invent just work, in 1917 you have planes, a tecnology that was considered a failure, with weapons, and planes with bombs, and different types of plane, and with that invent, a military invested one, the companies could make aerolines, and make the planes a consumer good, yeah sure google, and apple, are doing R&D, but the important ones are going very slow, until something happen and the goverment will invest like crazy.
@@TheMaztercom I agree that war can accelerate certain advancements but the truth is that companies Advance with or without the war anyways. The plane was just over 10 years old when World War 1 started. It likely would have followed a similar path as the automobile and still continue to advance even without the incentive of War. I don't think you've seen the breath of the project those companies are working on if you think they're just using "old technology". In fact the government is calling on those companies now for some of the supplies it needs, like the private company SpaceX now being NASA's supplier to the space station. NASA actually doesn't have the ability to do what SpaceX does as efficiently.
I have always said that the post war prosperity of the US was due to other countries having lost their factories and infrastructure in the war. It feels good to have someone finally acknowledge this.
short anwser is no, it forces the economy to be built around low education = manual labor jobs. You know, jobs slavers would trust slaves to do, thus capping diversity and amount of potental jobs, and limiting consumers, increase possible instablity due to civil unrest, because a large part of your population are slaves.
@AutoDriver4000 If you don't pay the workers they are not consumers, so they don't move money and don't create jobs elsewhere. That is the point of view of macroeconomics and not just of the slaveowner.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 I both agree and disagree, Its terrible for an industrial economy but for a pre-industrial it has massive benefits as it creates specialists in work that people would not be compelled to do otherwise but is needed in a low tech agricultural economy. If it wasn't effective then it would not have existed in every society on earth in some form or other and its not coincidence that the first nations to consider abolition where the first to industrialise.
I keep thinking back to the old joke about stimulating the economy by hiring half the population to dig holes and drop money in, then hire the other half to dig the money back up. You stimulate the economy, but don't actually produce anything. Military spending is kinda like that, so much of the money just goes into a black hole of disposable items that serve little purpose beyond being expensive to produce.
Great video as usual! Just one issue I take with it. Stating that an economys purpose is to satisfy the needs of its consumers is not a fact, its a value statement. An economys purpose might just as well be to provide and maintain ecological and social services and well-being. In fact even determining what an economy is is itself an age old discussion. What you are presenting as fact is a neo-classical assumtion, if I´m not mistaken. The reason for nitpicking is that we are in a moment when we need to rethink the organisation of our entire societys to get them in line with our planetary boundaries, and that means putting the purpose of the economy up for discuission.
Does “trading”, rather than fundamental investing, such as day trading contribute to society other than moving money from trader to trader in a zero-sum game? Is the argument that it provides needed liquidity to markets reasonable?
Day traders take some value from fundamental investors when these go short, known as the cost of the liquidity. They don't only trade among themselves resulting into a zero-sum game. Same for future markets: investors accept the risk of future values variation, so they lose/earn money accordingly to the amount of money companies give up when they set the future prices they want. What fucks the market is credit availability based on monetary base expansion. Every credit should come from previous savings, otherwise, inflation is surely coming. Market bubbles = assets inflation, just for clarification.
In Schenectady NY there was a factory that maid trains. WW2 came a long and it was switched to tank production. After the war, the factory went dormant. It was unused for the next 80 years until it was leveled and a riverside casino resort was built. But, all the manufacturing jobs that factory could have supported went unfulfilled for almost a century, and was replaced by a casino.
I love your statement that the point of the economy is to provide value to consumers. Everything must be viewed through that lens, and then the way forward becomes clear.
Military spending can effect stability and in that way could be considered to be a benefit to the civil economy. If your military is weak compared to your enemies you are likely to be attacked and people wont want to spend.
To a point yes, but then you stand there with an enormous army, and no credible threats, and it becomes so tempting to use it offensively. That's what always happens to me at least when I play strategy games.
Consider the US, while being the largest military force in history, was successfully attacked on 9/11 and subsequently lost all attempts (and billions of dollars) at force projection in the Middle East. Or consider the possibility that the current pandemic was a bio-engineered weapon (not saying it was); how flat-footed the US military has been in response. You could make the argument that it would have been more effective to spend those funds on nationalized healthcare, if only in terms of national defense. To equate military spending with the civil economy is a gross misframing, like claiming prison spending benefits the economy instead of being, at best, a cost of doing business, to be reduced as much as possible and still be functional. Any country's best defense is to ensure it is more profitable to maintain good trading relations than attack.
@@quintessenceSL I agree but all I said is it CAN effect stability not that it is worth it just that it does have an effect on the implied stability of your country
It seems you have missed an important factor: the motivation. The workforce during a war agrees to work harder than ever before for benefits lower than ever before - just to win the war. It leaves a huge surplus in hands of few. Some people make fortunes but more importantly some others (e.g. the hated government) can make investments which will profit everybody in the long run.
Fantastic Video! Some of the greatest pragmatic economic insight I've ever received. If only economic professors could think like this when explaining and teaching how economies work!
@Treinstein "Oftentimes the winner of a war has to pay all the debts of both sides" that imples a dregree of either goodwill or moral duty that sadly is rarely seen in real life politics, heck, even if there were international treaties and third parties overseeing the conflict, the winnerwill still have more levearage to weasel out of any oblugations or punishments Also if a war drags long enough and not really one-sided then even if there is one definitive winner both sides suffer heavy loss of ressources, manpower, i frastructure etc...
War stopped being _broadly_ good for a nation's economy in the 50's, and has been _incredibly good for just a few corporate arms dealers_ at the cost of everyone else since then.
@@gabrielonibudo5710 Operation Iraqi Freedom: $6300 per US citizen, or roughly $12,000 per US taxpayer. Total cost: $2.4 trillion USD. Beneficiaries: KBR, BAE, General Dynamics.... Unless you have those blue chip stocks or work _directly_ for them as an employee, you _paid_ for the conflict, not _gained economically_ from it, even in a peripheral sense. It was no New Deal or post-war nuclear family economic boom with heaps of new technologies applied to everyday life. That was the _last_ time war was good for the US economy. These days, you break something, you pay double to fix it and put it right back on the shelf where you found it, not get a discount because it has a dent.
No. Wars were pretty much always a massive drain on the economy, but the thing is - you could pay for them in loot if you're the one winning. If you were fighting a defensive wars, a war that had served a different purpose (like war on slavery) or just as the wars evolved to be more industrialized and efficient and turned into total conflicts you had to wave goodbye to a shitton of money.
@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing Not to mention the human cost, the opportunity cost, and the cost to Iraq and the region, as well as the continuing costs nearly 20 years after, including but not limited to ISIS. At the same time another 'benefit' is the looting that did occur, in terms of US companies entering Iraq under incredibly favorable terms and impunity from local law. And the oil as well. I don't think that even the proponents of war, or those with a complete disregard for human life, can deny how wasteful war is economically even at its best.
This one reminded me of "if every worker was staffed in an army or fleet, we'd have full employment and nothing to eat" (ua-cam.com/video/GTQnarzmTOc/v-deo.html)
12:02 thanks for extending the border further north Economics Explained, I really like Vancouver and Alberta, they would be wonderful additions to the USA.
At some point in my life, I've agreed with all the points in this video. While I'm not totally sold on the technology argument as I do think necessity leads to innovation- speeding up technological development as opposed creating things that wouldn't have been created anyway. I am glad this video articulated the reasons those reasons are common misconceptions. Great work!
Sun Tzu - war is the most important activity of a nation and should be accurately pondered. Also Sun Tzu - the real won battle is the one that is never been fought Usa: nah i don't care
I like how you show how to analyse stats like GDP, unemployment and such, see the different ways the numbers canbe twisted, and what they are good and big good for. Can't tell you how many tryhards I have had to listen saying "the numbers obviously say this! Didn't you take economics 101?!" Now I can school them hard. Thanks Economics Explained!
Its worked pretty well, the US has killed tens of thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, Osama bin Laden, (why do you think there hasn't been another 9/11 type event) , and are helping the Afghan police and military become self sufficient without our help. We've also built many schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Of course, the job is never done, but Afghanistan is definitely a much better place now than it was before the US came in
Glomo definitely not true Afghanistan is split in the middle the us has failed to build any lasting change and along with the few terrorists killed thousands of civilians were killed
Good perspective, Which is consistent with more modern economic thought. In the old days, the principle was taught as "guns vs butter" but never went beyond the observation that the economy could be directed to a primary purpose of war vs peaceful production. Today, as described in this video, There is an acknowledgement that there may be a moral and even multi layer effect of production, in other words looking closer at whatever is being produced, and considering the short and long term value of that service or widget.
I love that your videos are like they were made with Google AI. Throw in a script, AI picks up keywords and just throws back random stock videos with varying relevance.
I think the internet is gonna have a really interesting effect on war long term. With the internet people have more in common with other people on the internet than other people in their country, and you need something to unite everyone with in wars. Like why would I fight for my county when I have more in common with random people on the internet that may even be on the other side of the war? Really long term I could totally see the very concept of countries breaking down due to this.
I see identity becoming a total mess as a result and wars becoming disasters that cause nations more integrated with outside world online to suffer the most.
@@bulldozer8950 Even for the 3rd party that did the selling, it is a net loss. they come out ahead of the parties that were fighting, but the overall economy between the three is smaller than it would have been without the war. So it is less that they win, and more that the lost the least.
Your point about purpose in an economy. I would argue that economies and economics in general ONLY work when people feel safe enough to participate. Most assumptions in economic models assume PERFECT knowledge and rationality which people are not. Look at our current pandemic. Government's are ordering people to shelter in place halting participation in economics. Economics also only works when there are profits to be made. Since both fundamentals have ceased economic models can not be used effectively for global pandemics as well as war. It is an opinion of course but a very valid one I feel.
9:00 "There is of course some benefit for being safe and having secure borders, but the reality is most countries would be able to achieve this with a far smaller budget" There's a reason for that: The US, China, and Russia all invest in their militaries so that almost every other country doesn't have to. That has been the case since since the Cold War. Saying there is only "some benefit" from security ensured by militaries is only applicable to countries who have no need for a strong military. For the real powers of the world, that makes no sense. For them, the military serves a supremely beneficial economic purpose in ensuring the security of their own trade partners and allies. If instead of 3 powers maintaining this balance, all nations had to worry about their own security, I can't imagine they could maintain as strong economies as they are able to now.
That's circular logic. The only reason you need ANY military at all, no matter what country you are, is because someone else in the world has a military. If nobody had the inclination to attack others it wouldn't matter of course. But that's unrealistic. Even so, a purely defensive military is much cheaper than one with offensive capabilities... The stronger an opposing military is, the more you need a strong military of your own. Allies are a mixed blessing there, since relying on them puts you at an inherent disadvantage. Plus it falls apart if your allies aren't trustworthy... (And I'm not always convinced, given the things I've heard of in the past, that say, the US is actually a completely trustworthy ally. - and by reducing your own military and relying on another country, you make yourself vulnerable to abuse by your 'protector' above all else...)
Don't forget the internet. Outside of war we get a lot of innovations that are rolled out as slowly as possible to maximize the amount of time you can spend scraping money out of people. The innovation that occurs outside of war is tiny and surface level, just enough go convince people to buy new thing.
Make a video about modern monetary theory incorporating a generous basic income. Population growth becomes a demand growth instead of using inflation to encourage a supply growth.
Thanks for watching EE nation! ❤️ If you enjoyed, please consider supporting the show on Patreon! 😎
See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more!
➡️ www.patreon.com/EconomicsExplained
Do you even get the military situation in china? we need to increase spending.
Did you steal the title from Seinfeld?!!!! Jerry pulls a fast one on Elaine
When you say that military jobs provide little(or inefficient) value to a market consumer, I think you're undervaluing the complex effects of stability and security. A strong military provides a sense of security both to government-backed currencies and government debt. It also provides social stability(as long as it's not used against the people), ensuring the smooth(and therefore cheaper) transaction of commerce. I'm not arguing that our military is unimprovable, just that it has a very large effect on consumer satisfaction.
@Alistair Bolden no it’s not.
The argument regarding technology is not a narrow one. Warfare influences the consumer sector when governments award contracts. This is because war in itself creates massive amounts of competition between nations and companies within a nation. As the old adage goes “competition is the mother of all innovation”, and war is the ultimate competition. It is not just a matter of who gets the most money. It’s a matter of incentive and war is a massive incentive to innovate. While there is competition during peacetime, it is nowhere near the amount during wartime.
As warfare gets more complex the technology that goes into it has far more consumer applications. Even if it is not optimized for consumer comfort, military technology tends to put functionality and durability first. If a product is developed solely for profit in a consumer market, it runs the risk of becoming unreliable.
As a swiss I have to add that war *IS* good for the economy, as long as you are not the one fighting it.
Depends. 1945 USA was way better off than 1939 USA.
@The sound of, do you hear it? Git Gud
The US was only in ww1 for less than a year.
WW2 they were fighting for 3.5 years of the 5 year war.
@@olivier6840 Without ww2 the US depression would have gone on for years longer.
Without US's involvement, America would be Nazi or Communist... Wait, peoples minds are already communist...
Goddamn Swiss mercenaries taking all our guard jobs
Every time you hear "it's good for the economy" I think we should always wonder whose economy we are talking about.
yup. for the part few years ive started taking that term with a grain of salt
I want to make an anti-semitic reply but I'm not sure if i can
WHEN
WHEN THE SHEKEL HITS
Not yours or mine that's for sure
Only ones who say that is America. Only reason they think that is their role in WWII
I laugh harder every time I see that. “You see all these cities being destroyed overseas? It’s great for us!”
Last time I was this early the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program was on budget.
Money make war.
Hello! Can you enable closed captions? I'd like to add them, though you speak clearly enough auto-captions might be sufficient
@@pyeitme508 I think it's the battle hymn of the republic.
Where do you get this footage?
@@thiennhat7094 Money makes War and War makes money. Circle of life.
In a time when UA-camrs chase trends and prioritize monetization, I would to like to express my respect to you for choosing genuinely interesting topics, even when they straddle the thin line of UA-cam demonetization. I applaud you sir. Great video, keep up the good work!
👏
I'm not sure where this quote comes from, but I've heard something to the effect of; "In a fight between two, the winner is the third."
That's pretty much what happened with the US economy by the end of the war. It wasn't great for the US, but everywhere else suffered much more so the US became a super power in the post war world, a status it used to draw more power and establish the hegemony we live in now.
Yep. That's how war can benefit the economy. By taking more from the others than you've lost. Be it in the war itself or in the newly built post war economy.
@@giarnovanzeijl399 they didnt take more, they just didnt loose anything
Both WW1 and WW2 were to the United State's overall benefit. With the US becoming the world reserve currency after the UK went into debt and got off the gold standard to deal with WW1. Causing the Dollar to overtake the Pound. Along with the fact that the US didn't suffer much if any destruction to its cities etc in both wars.
@@jasons2752 yep, Britains position as centre of global economics was dragged from under their feet, by the US.
The Swiss are there to prove you right! Being neutral and selling goods and services for both parties are the best way to deal with war in an economic stand point (but we must remember that economy isn't the only thing that drives humanity forward, so entering a war could have other benefits)
EE on march: did a global pandemic affect economy?
EE on april: did a war affect economy?
EE on may(?): did apocalypse affect economy?
Setupthemabomb he’s already done natural disasters as well
By December it will be "will the world economy ever recover to pre pandemic levels."
Don’t worry, everything was fine!
Lol
"Military is giant form of welfare" Consul Gaius Marius likes that comment.
KEL DELMINI gotta love Rome am I right
I like that too
It would be better for the economy to hire people to do nothing, than to hire people to destroy things.
@@marc4770 Not necessarly.Many invretion where first invented for the army.I am not saying that it's a good excuse to kill each others, but it's just a "happy" side effect.
@@marc4770 but rome growth came from conquest, which need legion of armies
"The purpose of an economy is to increase the standards of living for the participants in that economy, and wars achieve the opposite of this."
Enlightened.
Yeah, I really like that.
there is no “purpose” of the economy, that’s like saying what is the purpose of a rock. dumb question
@@gabrielonibudo5710 What a stupid comment. That's the same as saying that there's no purpose to human action. Humans act to improve their standard of living. This cannot be debated
@@AbdulMeykal cry some more
@@gabrielonibudo5710 Bye Felicia
Sun Tzu - There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.
USA - I accept your challenge!
*Roman laughter in the distance*
@@FreonChugger was also their downfall ironically
war is very weird, you someone become safer by drawing attention to how good you are at defending yourself?? safer or more powerful? Drawing attention is kind of a bad idea if you want to be safe but if you want to project power it seems to make sense. Projecting power means you are at the top of the pecking order, which means the goods come to you first and all things go threw you, nothing happens unless you sanction it.
@Blood in the Water bet
Maudika don’t confuse warring with other nations and internal warfare
8:43 Historically military jobs did add value to an economy (in certain situations). The specific example I'm thinking of was with the British Royal Navy from about the time of the Tudors onwards to the end of world war 2. The more sailors they RN (and it's independent contractors, aka privateers) had, the more ships it could sail, the more Spanish treasure ships and ports they could raid, the more money was circulated in the economy, the more need for overseas bases to expand their raids was needed, required the establishment of anchorages, which turned into colonies that started producing commodities like sugar and tobacco (that became more profitable than the raiding and priacy), which needed more sailors to protect their own trade ships from pirates and privateers, and those trader sailing the trade ships wanted to expand their opportunities to trade, so the navy needed to protect them further a field and overawe some of the locals with demonstrations of fire power, which lead to more bases and more colonies, The British military became a service for the insuring the safety of British business overseas and a means of expanding through the overt threat of fire power.
In much the same way that was what determined why the Americans were the leading western allied power at the end of world war 2, they had the most military power to shape a geopolitical position that was favourable to themselves and they could use that to ensure their alliance (which would become NATO) had free reign to trade as much as they wanted across the oceans as the US Navy ensured their safety across the ocean. This protection for trade was damn near a bribe to those countries to act as the front line in any world war 3 scenario against the USSR (to contain a potential threat to the US).
"War is good for economy if you are seller of war related goods and equipments." - #UncleSam
“We sell death and death accessories” - 1930s hank hill
"War is good for economy if it happens in other countries and you are seller of war related goods and equipments." - #UncleSam
@@CamaradaArdi and you get free oil* terms and conditions apply
The winner is not the winner. The winner is the third guy selling to both countries to rebuild after.
Atrid The trick is to make the loser give you things of economic value
I think this misses some major points. Throughout most of human history, warfare was extraordinarily lucrative. Victory on the battlefield was a major source of raw material, capital, land and cheap manpower.
In the modern age, military hardware is exceedingly expensive. Moreover, a great deal of wealth is formed of intangible assets which cannot be seized through martial means. War is simply not a profitable prospect in the current era.
However, that is not to say that warfare could not become lucrative again, if our conditions radically alter. We are living in a uniquely peaceful period and it would be naïve to think that this will continue in perpetuity.
There are ways a modern war can help an economy in some ways. For example incentives to increase weapons productions can create an advanced engineering generation like Japan in the Korean Civil War. What's important is the risk/reward involved with winning the war.
The reality is actually that war itself was not lucrative. Stealing and/or controlling other people's resources is what was lucrative, whether there was a war or not (hence colonial powers). But even then it's a one-sided win, not good for the "human economy".
Tell that to Saddam, had the UN not interfered the occupation of Kuwait would’ve been greatly profitable
As long as we have nukes I believe there won't be great wars, hopefully...
Peaceful period for countries invading and selling their resources to its people for profit. People are dying everyday from wars funded by our tax dollars, just because our media won’t report on it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
How many wars are you planning to have?
US: yes
NOICE ; )
ajajajjajajajjajajajjajajajajajajaj
here we go again
Woke
@@AnderzMuecke actually that's a big lie
The United States may have all the money and the scary toys but, historically the US has never really been good at war.
We seem to have this stupid idea that high enemy body counts win wars.
In the words of anyone that got richer through war: "Less talking, more raiding!"
Warband gang!
It's almost harvesting season
The American economy did well post war as it had everyone's gold*, the only industrial country without bombed out factories and a huge global post war need for what it could sell. On top of the huge investment in modern infrastructure that facilitated further growth and improved efficiency.
In my opinion... No body wants to attack USA because it is located so far from main continents...
So when USA came to Europe, they had very little risk.
There were no planes that could travel long enough and traveled back.
And even if USA were losing, they could prepare for counter measure since they are literally separated by 2 oceans except from Soviet which were not even close to mainland US.
Actually it went through a huge massive recession. The 1950s has 4 separate recession.
Switzerland likes to disagree with you
Right after the war the USA was so rich that everyone else were like peasants who could not compare. everyone else felt poor apparently and felt bad for being poorer than Americans. Most of the world was quite poor compared to the USA except the allies. They did not like feeling poor one bit because people needed to pay their bills and make a living, loss of infrastructure really put people in poverty, to where trauma and prostitution was common, people who rich before the war were selling themselves just to not starve, very bad aftermath of the war.
tisFrancesfault the funny thing in all of this is how we reference USA as if it is a single force with its own conscious will... when it is a fantasy, an entity, a corpse... there seems to be a disconnect between our perception of reality... because no one is asking themselves who is in control... I ask you who owns the United States of America? If this entity goes through a new president every 4-8 years than that means the president is not in control/owner of the country, and the people are not in control because we did not right the laws that govern us or give our consent... so if you zoom out to the bigger picture you have to wonder what is the end all goal/vision of the USA and who is in control of the game plan and path that it travels? ... my whole point on bringing this up is to reveal the free Masonic occults, the secret societies, the deep state that is the shadow hand engineering our human realities... and that is the ISLAMIC STATE, the UAE UNITED ARABIAN EMIRATES own the UNITED STATES of AMERICA... they use 3rd party representatives to do their dirty work... like the British royal family, who is a loyal puppet of theirs... so when you look at the world, it looks as if England is in control... all while the Sauds hide in their private estates...
Bro I have no idea how the hell are you only still at 333k subscribers when you churn out such high quality content at such regular basis. God damn I salute you bro. Please keep the contents coming
Its triple now lol
Senator Armstrong: "HELL YES"
“America is diseased, rotten to the core. We need to pull it from the roots.”
The economy of nanomachines
Senator Armstrong wants to use war as a business to end war as a business
"Where laws are made to suit the individual not the other way around"
Damn I'm still wondering if that idea was bad
More Sundowner if anything: All we’re saying is, GIVE WAR A CHANCE!
Dude the level of video synchronisation to the subject matter is on another level. It's like you have a video clip for every half a sentence lol.
I dunno if I love it or just begrudgingly respect the hustle. The content is outstanding as always, keep it up.
"the sinews of war are infinite money" -Marcus Tullius Cicero
"WAR"
"HUH!!!!"
"YEAH"
"WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR"
"EMPLOYING SOME PEOPLE AND FUNDING BIG GOVERNMENT PROJECTS THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT LEAD INTO USEFUL TECHNOLOGY BUT THE MONEY COULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN SPENT BETTER doing this in a way that didn't sacrifice human life, perhaps funding projects between private actors and universities"
"UH HAA HAAA HUH"
"SAY IT AGAIN Y'ALL"
There is a thing called the millitary industry complex basically almost almost all the money spent on war is pad back since you can sell weapons and taxes all the huge company's that make your weapons
@@evancammisa338 Thanks Evan, really never heard of it - I'll give it a read!
Arguing that spending the money we spent on WWII would have been better spent elsewhere is not an argument against spending during WWII helping to end the Great Depression. After all, we had a full decade of the Great Depression before we entered the war. We clearly had no plans of doing the more effective spending with that money.
@Andrew Smith SAY IT AGAIN YALL
Really rolls off the tongue.
Amazing content! Thank you for taking the time really explore economics and the backbone of our modern existence, please keep up the great work!
Thanks mate, I appreciate the kind words and to know people are enjoying these little vids I put together.
12:03 ah yes, i almost forgot america conquered the entirety of southern canada
Alaska also declared itself independent
I think it's Alaska decided to move closer the mainland XD.
Wait what?! GET OUT ME COUNTRY lol
North America
You can have it back. Lol
This channel has the best usage of stock footage I have ever seen.
10:50
I agree with the general point here but it's really important what you consider innovation. Our current society is spending vast amounts of resources on producing essentially useless goods. Like another competing mail app, another competing social media platform or a 700$ sold-at-loss juice squeezer. All just slightly better, but maybe not even that.
These fit under the optimistic view of innovation that you see many take. But these are ultimately very small steps. Even though spending is higher (as you've asserted) you've got more wasted effort because the purpose of that competition is usually to eliminate your opposition or to just win over your competition. The consumer doesn't require a step that's on a scale where it'd significantly improve mankind to actually change who they buy from. Just good enough, which means that every company reaches for all the easy to reach steps instead of finding a way to jump forward.
When I've argued with people who think war is good for technological advancement they usually don't point to these trivial innovations you include here. They point to the big advancements you saw during the cold war like advanced material science and basically the countless advantages we now have due to the space race. And when addressing that it's obvious that usually people in peacetime don't try for these ambitious projects. Governments (see: voters) aren't willing to spend. Companies have too much short term focus because they'll likely die otherwise. Even those we consider ambitious companies like Tesla don't really make the large innovations you saw during the cold war. Reusable rockets are of course a strong step. It's far greater than most companies I can think of. But even so it's just one company. In that sense a "slightly better fighter jet" can still be much better money spent because it did something substantial most likely. Even if its target isn't aligned with improving things for people.
But undeniably the cost of war or even just international disunity is a large enough cost that it doesn't make sense to strive for that over the status quo. There needs to be a way to generate interest for this kind of project organically because they're so much more important. Now it's not necessarily the case that external pressures like you had in the cold war was the primary reason we see less of what I'd consider genuine innovation now. It's very possible that the resources that are spent just don't reach as far because the problems are harder.
Either way I think the first step to solving this (if it is a problem) is to try and measure. Something like where theoretical physics is at in contrast to leading tech in relevant areas would be a measure.
edit:formatting
MrSnowman That’s the true tragedy of war, way above that of death or suffering. The true tragedy of war is that it’s the only time when humans achieve their zenith.
I think you significantly overestimate how much resources go into these "useless goods", Facebook only has like 50k employees and they spin 70 billion in ad revenue, that is very efficient use of labor, how much revenue does your employer have per employee? Developing some stupid app is nothing, many of the simpler ones are basically one man jobs to create. And the juicer wasn't an innovation at all, it was just a scam to make off with investors money.
Most of the GDP is just the packaging, branding, and up-marketing of basically the same product.
@@aleksandersuur9475 Sure- the M-16 went thru what- half a dozen tiny revisions- and still has a radical low avg stoppage rate relative the other NATO rifles- really, really easy to spend huge sums of military $ for tiny improvements
To be honest if it was just a space race instead of inventing better and efficient ways of killing each other, we would be mining asteroids or harnessing the power of the sun right now. All these billionaires who horde money just for the sake of being branded a billionaire doesn't help either. Humanity is fucked
1:35
Those wires though, that disorganization hurt
good old 3rd world power grid for ya
Eeh
@@EconomicsExplained i think you mean power spaghetti
Sundowner:
"GIVE WAR A CHANCE!"
I was looking for this quote
Last time i was this early, Germany was almost in Moscow
almost...
@Scott Covert no, the winter and shear Soviet might (and American aid) defeated them, yes I know it was a joke
@@RealVidjag No winter is an overblown myth. It was primarily Soviet tenacity and poor German logistics that defeated the Nazis. In regards to Lend Lease, that is still very much up to date but citing the man who is considered the most knowledgable on the Eastern Front, David Glantz, he believes "the defeat of Nazi Germany would have taken 12 to 18 months longer) had there been no lend lease, make of that what you will.
@@zexal4217 ok, thanks
@@zexal4217 Actually, the seasons did play a role, but the Russian Autumn mud season was even more important than the Russian winter.
"War is good for business"
-Ferengi Rules of Acquisition
As long as you're not the one fighting it, that is true.
Yeah just look how business was booming in Europe right after the war when half of the cities were floored
"Peace is good for business"
- Also Ferengi Rules of Acquisition
Last time I was this early Hannibal routed the Romans with a pincer maneuver with his calvary
Yi Ge last time i was this early Aeneas was still banging Dido
@@ngnxtan Last time I was this early, Gilgamesh was still searching for eternal life
*C A V A L R Y*
@@topkek1194 I've made a fool of myself
Last time I was this early we were celebrating around a big wooden horse we just got as a gift from the Greeks.
I think you're missing one of the key aspects of the military technology research. It's government funded, so the resulting technology is more freely available to be exploited by the economy.
Private research tends to be kept from general use.
Wars also push technology. Yes, it's first case is to win the war, but once a concept is proven then it can be used in other areas.
And yes, it would be better if that money could be spent directly on R+D, then the results given away as public goods. But it's more politically acceptable to spend on defense.
i think you miss the point too, "And yes, it would be better if that money could be spent directly on R+D, then the results given away as public goods" no, because the goverment nor the private sector have a reason to spent on R+D, the war make that reason, because if you think about it, why would the goverment or private sector make a missile? that happen in ww2, with the B-1 AND B-2, thanks to that, USA reach the moon, and they are many reasons, the radio is other example, you see private sector only want money, and so they will invest in what makes them more money, imagine tomorrow a new energy is discover, but the renovable companies, and coal, and hidroelectric, dont want to lose money so they dont invest, and the goverment dont see any reason to invest in that, but then came war, and the resources fall quickly, and the infraestructure is damage, and is more cheap and fast to invest in that new energy than reconstruct all the damage infraestructure.
@@TheMaztercom uh? So I'm not saying War doesn't drive Innovation but companies are doing plenty of R&D without the incentive of War. That's how we have most of the consumer goods we have today. Go research Amazon, Google, uber, Apple, Tesla and Virgin Galactic's projects as a start?
@@jonjeskie5234 The R&D that companies are researching, is old tecnology, that they are modifiyng, new tecnologies for example are going very slow, but in a war sceneario, they would be develope much faster, and you have say it, consumer goods, that give them money, so that is the incentive to make it, take for example the plane, in 1913 it was a prototype that work, it was no a great invent just work, in 1917 you have planes, a tecnology that was considered a failure, with weapons, and planes with bombs, and different types of plane, and with that invent, a military invested one, the companies could make aerolines, and make the planes a consumer good, yeah sure google, and apple, are doing R&D, but the important ones are going very slow, until something happen and the goverment will invest like crazy.
@@TheMaztercom I agree that war can accelerate certain advancements but the truth is that companies Advance with or without the war anyways. The plane was just over 10 years old when World War 1 started. It likely would have followed a similar path as the automobile and still continue to advance even without the incentive of War. I don't think you've seen the breath of the project those companies are working on if you think they're just using "old technology". In fact the government is calling on those companies now for some of the supplies it needs, like the private company SpaceX now being NASA's supplier to the space station. NASA actually doesn't have the ability to do what SpaceX does as efficiently.
Ah yes, Rule 34 of acquisition: War is good for business.
Trekkie_ _0802 There’s also the 35th rule: Peace is good for business.
@@georgsgrants9925 beat me to it.
Rule 34, you say...
DAMMIT! You beat me to it.
War! Huh! What is it good for? Making lots of money 🎶🎶
I have always said that the post war prosperity of the US was due to other countries having lost their factories and infrastructure in the war. It feels good to have someone finally acknowledge this.
In the wise words of Bo Burnham, “War! What is it good for? Increasing domestic manufacturing.”
Ah yes a fellow man of culture
The Pandemic may also spur domestic manufacturing, for the sake of securing vital supply chains for national security.
@Boris Erdogan Wrong. You can vent out steam by blowing up and shooting up things.
Everyone- Is this man Cultured?
Captain Yoinker- ' writes this comment '
Everyone- Ah Yes supremely Cultured!
Captain Yoinker-...
@Boris Erdogan There are cheaters in CS:GO, but not in real life.
Do a "Was slavery good for the economy?"
It might be better to do "why is slavery bad for an economy?" video. That slavery hurts economic growth is common knowledge among economists.
short anwser is no, it forces the economy to be built around low education = manual labor jobs. You know, jobs slavers would trust slaves to do, thus capping diversity and amount of potental jobs, and limiting consumers, increase possible instablity due to civil unrest, because a large part of your population are slaves.
@AutoDriver4000 If you don't pay the workers they are not consumers, so they don't move money and don't create jobs elsewhere. That is the point of view of macroeconomics and not just of the slaveowner.
Short answer, bad for the economy, very good for certain individuals' personal finances.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 I both agree and disagree, Its terrible for an industrial economy but for a pre-industrial it has massive benefits as it creates specialists in work that people would not be compelled to do otherwise but is needed in a low tech agricultural economy. If it wasn't effective then it would not have existed in every society on earth in some form or other and its not coincidence that the first nations to consider abolition where the first to industrialise.
I keep thinking back to the old joke about stimulating the economy by hiring half the population to dig holes and drop money in, then hire the other half to dig the money back up. You stimulate the economy, but don't actually produce anything. Military spending is kinda like that, so much of the money just goes into a black hole of disposable items that serve little purpose beyond being expensive to produce.
reminds me of this
ua-cam.com/video/JnX-D4kkPOQ/v-deo.html
Great video as usual! Just one issue I take with it.
Stating that an economys purpose is to satisfy the needs of its consumers is not a fact, its a value statement.
An economys purpose might just as well be to provide and maintain ecological and social services and well-being.
In fact even determining what an economy is is itself an age old discussion. What you are presenting as fact is a neo-classical assumtion, if I´m not mistaken.
The reason for nitpicking is that we are in a moment when we need to rethink the organisation of our entire societys to get them in line with our planetary boundaries, and that means putting the purpose of the economy up for discuission.
How about the black market economy, which actually thrives during war and conflict?
Does “trading”, rather than fundamental investing, such as day trading contribute to society other than moving money from trader to trader in a zero-sum game? Is the argument that it provides needed liquidity to markets reasonable?
Day traders take some value from fundamental investors when these go short, known as the cost of the liquidity.
They don't only trade among themselves resulting into a zero-sum game.
Same for future markets: investors accept the risk of future values variation, so they lose/earn money accordingly to the amount of money companies give up when they set the future prices they want.
What fucks the market is credit availability based on monetary base expansion. Every credit should come from previous savings, otherwise, inflation is surely coming.
Market bubbles = assets inflation, just for clarification.
Last time I was this early, I can still go out freely.
In Schenectady NY there was a factory that maid trains. WW2 came a long and it was switched to tank production. After the war, the factory went dormant. It was unused for the next 80 years until it was leveled and a riverside casino resort was built. But, all the manufacturing jobs that factory could have supported went unfulfilled for almost a century, and was replaced by a casino.
Hearing that hearts of iron soundtrack reminds how well war improved the economy of the nations I play there...
I love your statement that the point of the economy is to provide value to consumers. Everything must be viewed through that lens, and then the way forward becomes clear.
Military spending can effect stability and in that way could be considered to be a benefit to the civil economy. If your military is weak compared to your enemies you are likely to be attacked and people wont want to spend.
To a point yes, but then you stand there with an enormous army, and no credible threats, and it becomes so tempting to use it offensively. That's what always happens to me at least when I play strategy games.
Consider the US, while being the largest military force in history, was successfully attacked on 9/11 and subsequently lost all attempts (and billions of dollars) at force projection in the Middle East.
Or consider the possibility that the current pandemic was a bio-engineered weapon (not saying it was); how flat-footed the US military has been in response. You could make the argument that it would have been more effective to spend those funds on nationalized healthcare, if only in terms of national defense.
To equate military spending with the civil economy is a gross misframing, like claiming prison spending benefits the economy instead of being, at best, a cost of doing business, to be reduced as much as possible and still be functional.
Any country's best defense is to ensure it is more profitable to maintain good trading relations than attack.
@@quintessenceSL I agree but all I said is it CAN effect stability not that it is worth it just that it does have an effect on the implied stability of your country
Anyone: Wanna buy some oil?!
US: "Nope, I just want it"
To be fair, US has essentially been self-sufficient in oil for the past decade
It's for Europe!
@@SingleMalt2 you're right BUT you have to admit we love our oil.
@@shorewall
Its about who gets to sell it to Europe.
The Middle East didn't want to sell their oil tho.
honestly fantastic video and super underrated channel. keep on going brother :)
It seems you have missed an important factor: the motivation. The workforce during a war agrees to work harder than ever before for benefits lower than ever before - just to win the war. It leaves a huge surplus in hands of few. Some people make fortunes but more importantly some others (e.g. the hated government) can make investments which will profit everybody in the long run.
Fantastic Video! Some of the greatest pragmatic economic insight I've ever received. If only economic professors could think like this when explaining and teaching how economies work!
The beggining intro soundtrack makes me feel... *PaTRioTic* as much as a *Tsar bomb!* - Thank you EE; very cool !
The DORUK Those are opposite patriotisms. Which side are you on?
As he died to make men holy Let us die to make men free! As God is marching on!
Third line of "Battle Hymn of the Republic"
Bill Kong Patrionism isn’t reserved for the US...
STEREOTYPE. right but I think being patriotic for the USSR would preclude patriotism for the USA
"War as a business and ending wars as a business." - Some Senator whom didn't write his own speeches.
iamtehgame Making mother of all omelletes here Jack, can’t fret over every egg.
"GDP is a mistake itself" - Economics Explained, 2020
Definitely still the best channel on UA-cam.
If you are the invader and winner, then YES, if you are the one being invaded and are losing then NO
*looks at Poland* yeah... I think I agree
There is no winner. There is only a bigger and a smaller loser.
@Treinstein "Oftentimes the winner of a war has to pay all the debts of both sides" that imples a dregree of either goodwill or moral duty that sadly is rarely seen in real life politics, heck, even if there were international treaties and third parties overseeing the conflict, the winnerwill still have more levearage to weasel out of any oblugations or punishments
Also if a war drags long enough and not really one-sided then even if there is one definitive winner both sides suffer heavy loss of ressources, manpower, i frastructure etc...
Post-Imperial Japan would disagree.
Wrong. Japan, Italy and (West) Germany all enjoyed rapid development after WW2
There is a lot of wisdom in this video
War stopped being _broadly_ good for a nation's economy in the 50's, and has been _incredibly good for just a few corporate arms dealers_ at the cost of everyone else since then.
This comment is underrated.
who exactly has it cost? and how much was the cost?
@@gabrielonibudo5710 Operation Iraqi Freedom: $6300 per US citizen, or roughly $12,000 per US taxpayer. Total cost: $2.4 trillion USD. Beneficiaries: KBR, BAE, General Dynamics....
Unless you have those blue chip stocks or work _directly_ for them as an employee, you _paid_ for the conflict, not _gained economically_ from it, even in a peripheral sense. It was no New Deal or post-war nuclear family economic boom with heaps of new technologies applied to everyday life. That was the _last_ time war was good for the US economy. These days, you break something, you pay double to fix it and put it right back on the shelf where you found it, not get a discount because it has a dent.
No. Wars were pretty much always a massive drain on the economy, but the thing is - you could pay for them in loot if you're the one winning. If you were fighting a defensive wars, a war that had served a different purpose (like war on slavery) or just as the wars evolved to be more industrialized and efficient and turned into total conflicts you had to wave goodbye to a shitton of money.
@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing Not to mention the human cost, the opportunity cost, and the cost to Iraq and the region, as well as the continuing costs nearly 20 years after, including but not limited to ISIS.
At the same time another 'benefit' is the looting that did occur, in terms of US companies entering Iraq under incredibly favorable terms and impunity from local law. And the oil as well.
I don't think that even the proponents of war, or those with a complete disregard for human life, can deny how wasteful war is economically even at its best.
When I’m idle your videos help me get my mind in gear regardless of my class units.
This one reminded me of "if every worker was staffed in an army or fleet, we'd have full employment and nothing to eat" (ua-cam.com/video/GTQnarzmTOc/v-deo.html)
It's not wrong... But it still annoyed me.
I honestly love this channel. Keeps me sharp and informed!
A wise man once said
"If you cant make money during a war, you just plain cant make money."
there is a video game character called sundowner who idolises war so much he even says a line: like the good old days after 9/11
12:02 thanks for extending the border further north Economics Explained, I really like Vancouver and Alberta, they would be wonderful additions to the USA.
The impact of the Bretton Woods conference on the modern economy (on trade for example), and how little is mentioned is impressive.
In the words of Sundowner: "mo' wars, mo' money"
At some point in my life, I've agreed with all the points in this video. While I'm not totally sold on the technology argument as I do think necessity leads to innovation- speeding up technological development as opposed creating things that wouldn't have been created anyway. I am glad this video articulated the reasons those reasons are common misconceptions. Great work!
Coincidentally the title of this video, “War, what`s it good for?” is also the original name of War and Peace.
Wasn't it Tolstoy's mistress, that came up with the idea to change it?
@@nunyabeeswax7111 Exactly. You seem to be a chap who is well aware of history of literature :)
deep cut
Well said! Thanks for being out there.
"Jack we're making the mother of all omelets here"
i love this series i binge watch!
Sun Tzu - war is the most important activity of a nation and should be accurately pondered.
Also Sun Tzu - the real won battle is the one that is never been fought
Usa: nah i don't care
USA citizen : lose
Corporations in USA that supply for war : stonk
Can you please do a video explaining the trade war between china and US in depth? Or a video explaining who needs who more, China or the US?
Meamwhile in Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey: what war?
I like how you show how to analyse stats like GDP, unemployment and such, see the different ways the numbers canbe twisted, and what they are good and big good for.
Can't tell you how many tryhards I have had to listen saying "the numbers obviously say this! Didn't you take economics 101?!" Now I can school them hard. Thanks Economics Explained!
It did not work in Afghanistan...
No foreign army has ever done well in Afghanistan
@@andrewscott8892 Not even Afghanistan could do it
Its worked pretty well, the US has killed tens of thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, Osama bin Laden, (why do you think there hasn't been another 9/11 type event) , and are helping the Afghan police and military become self sufficient without our help. We've also built many schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Of course, the job is never done, but Afghanistan is definitely a much better place now than it was before the US came in
Glomo definitely not true Afghanistan is split in the middle the us has failed to build any lasting change and along with the few terrorists killed thousands of civilians were killed
@@aaayhvcvb3219 Wasn't serious. It was my shit attempt to joke
Video suggestions:
Who benefits from the military presence in foreign lands?
Is War good for shareholders and Banks?
War and Federal Reserves
"is war good for the economy"
Hoi4 players: yes
civ players: yass
Good perspective,
Which is consistent with more modern economic thought.
In the old days, the principle was taught as "guns vs butter" but never went beyond the observation that the economy could be directed to a primary purpose of war vs peaceful production.
Today, as described in this video,
There is an acknowledgement that there may be a moral and even multi layer effect of production, in other words looking closer at whatever is being produced, and considering the short and long term value of that service or widget.
I will just a quote here: "Those who do not feed their army, will feed someone elses one"
Great video! I like how made sure to cover all the counterarguments. I had never heard the "war drives innovation" argument for war.
Didn’t quite get the concept, bombed a small Gambian village to get my son through college.
Please do a video on the world-wide urban housing affordability crisis
(War) h'uh
Yeah!
(What is it good for?)
Absolutely (nothin) uh-huh, uh-huh
Mate youre a great teacher really got me engaged. Mightve done better in my eco a level id i discovered you a few years back. Keep up the good work
*red sun intensifies*
I love that your videos are like they were made with Google AI. Throw in a script, AI picks up keywords and just throws back random stock videos with varying relevance.
Before even watching, let me guess... Yes, if you're winning.
Well broken window fallacy is good, when you broke a window to a stranger (in other country), and send your company to repair it :)
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
I think the internet is gonna have a really interesting effect on war long term. With the internet people have more in common with other people on the internet than other people in their country, and you need something to unite everyone with in wars. Like why would I fight for my county when I have more in common with random people on the internet that may even be on the other side of the war?
Really long term I could totally see the very concept of countries breaking down due to this.
I see identity becoming a total mess as a result and wars becoming disasters that cause nations more integrated with outside world online to suffer the most.
is sundowner and senator Armstrong here?
Kids are cruel jack
Man, your content is fantastic but all its value is in the audio, so why don't you make a podcast as well?
TL;DR: War isn’t good for the economy, winning wars is good for the economy.
Even winning today is a net loss, it just makes segments of the economy richer at the cost of general prosperity.
Winning isn’t even the best though, selling to the winner is. And the loser. The third guy selling is the winner.
@@bulldozer8950 Even for the 3rd party that did the selling, it is a net loss. they come out ahead of the parties that were fighting, but the overall economy between the three is smaller than it would have been without the war. So it is less that they win, and more that the lost the least.
Your point about purpose in an economy. I would argue that economies and economics in general ONLY work when people feel safe enough to participate. Most assumptions in economic models assume PERFECT knowledge and rationality which people are not. Look at our current pandemic. Government's are ordering people to shelter in place halting participation in economics. Economics also only works when there are profits to be made. Since both fundamentals have ceased economic models can not be used effectively for global pandemics as well as war. It is an opinion of course but a very valid one I feel.
Sundowner gaming
GIV WAR A CHANCE
WARS JUST A PART OF WHO WE ARE
I think you did a great job. Thanks!
*SENATOR ARMSTRONG WANTS TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION*
NOW LISTEN HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR COMMENT
The broken window example. Totally a great example. Haha
9:00 "There is of course some benefit for being safe and having secure borders, but the reality is most countries would be able to achieve this with a far smaller budget"
There's a reason for that: The US, China, and Russia all invest in their militaries so that almost every other country doesn't have to. That has been the case since since the Cold War. Saying there is only "some benefit" from security ensured by militaries is only applicable to countries who have no need for a strong military. For the real powers of the world, that makes no sense. For them, the military serves a supremely beneficial economic purpose in ensuring the security of their own trade partners and allies. If instead of 3 powers maintaining this balance, all nations had to worry about their own security, I can't imagine they could maintain as strong economies as they are able to now.
Exactly.
That's circular logic.
The only reason you need ANY military at all, no matter what country you are, is because someone else in the world has a military.
If nobody had the inclination to attack others it wouldn't matter of course.
But that's unrealistic.
Even so,
a purely defensive military is much cheaper than one with offensive capabilities...
The stronger an opposing military is, the more you need a strong military of your own.
Allies are a mixed blessing there, since relying on them puts you at an inherent disadvantage.
Plus it falls apart if your allies aren't trustworthy...
(And I'm not always convinced, given the things I've heard of in the past, that say, the US is actually a completely trustworthy ally. - and by reducing your own military and relying on another country, you make yourself vulnerable to abuse by your 'protector' above all else...)
Great song choice for the introduction! Ulysses S Grant approves.
War literally invented almost everything we have. The jet engine was a wartime invention. The rocket. The GPS satellite. The satellite. Etc.
Don't forget the internet. Outside of war we get a lot of innovations that are rolled out as slowly as possible to maximize the amount of time you can spend scraping money out of people. The innovation that occurs outside of war is tiny and surface level, just enough go convince people to buy new thing.
Make a video about modern monetary theory incorporating a generous basic income. Population growth becomes a demand growth instead of using inflation to encourage a supply growth.