Because as marine said, wars do create a load jobs. However, I strongly believe that it's hardly a long-term solution, and that the amount money spent to create these jobs is definitely more than needed to create the same amount of jobs in the public sector, and sustaining them.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why do that when you can blow it on kerosene and diesel for military vehicles?DonFck wrote:
19% would free up a lot of cash for the public sector and get things rolling. It would generate jobs like a motherf...
See, sustainable growth is a good thing. Rapid growth in the oil and arms industry for the duration of a war generates funds in short term for just these industries, while all things domestic take a blow to the gut.
Take infrastructure, for instance. I'd rather have my tax money spent on smooth tarmac roads, an electric grid that's maintained with minimal to no blackouts (minimal come from E.g. storm damage and such), and stutter-free high speed internet to my house at a low cost, than blow it all on a war.
After a military campaign, the roads still suck, the grid is older and less reliable than it was, and your Internet connection is still doing 512 kbps on DSL. Only the country has less money to do something about it.
Wars do create jobs. Peace creates sustainable growth. War is inevitable at times, I know that. And military equipment advances need war to go forward. But what about increasing quality of life for as many as possible? In my eyes, it looks better on paper at least.
I need around tree fiddy.
