War with Iran would rescue US economy

[Lankan Ranger]

War with Iran would rescue US economy

Washington Post political correspondent David Broder has kind words for President Barack Obama in in his opinion column Sunday, arguing that it isn't the president's fault the economy is stuck in reverse.

But the four-decade-plus veteran of Washington politics offers a startling solution to the president's political and economic woes: March off to war with Iran.

The president, who is "much smarter" and "more inspirational" than any of his opponents, could benefit from a confrontation with Iran because it would strike up a war machine that would pull the US out of economic stagnation, Broder argues.

He writes that there are "essentially" two ways that an economy can be grown: Through the natural economic cycle, and through war.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

"I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected," Broder qualifies. "But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century."

Broder's column has come in for almost instant criticism from economic and political policy experts. In a blog entry entitled "Has David Broder Lost His Mind?," Foreign Policy managing editor Blake Hounshell writes that Broder's proposal is "crazy for a number of reasons."

Writing at the same magazine, Marc Lynch argues that Broder's column is "an interesting study in how really dumb ideas bounce around Washington DC," and asserts that the Obama administration finds such an idea "ridiculous."

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research argues that Broder's idea for government-driven stimulus isn't wrong, but it doesn't need to be military in nature.

"If spending on war can provide jobs and lift the economy then so can spending on roads, weatherizing homes, or educating our kids. Yes, that's right, all the forms of stimulus spending that Broder derided so much because they add to the deficit will increase GDP and generate jobs just like the war that Broder is advocating (which will also add to the deficit)," Baker writes.

But the harshest criticism comes from Matt Duss at ThinkProgress.

"Especially in light of what has just occurred in Iraq, what kind of moral degenerate seriously suggests we get ready to do it again in neighboring Iran, just as a way to spur job growth?" he asks. "The kind who writes a regular column in the Washington Post, apparently."

WashPost: War with Iran would rescue economy | Raw Story

 

[Vajra_Yuddh]

War with Iran would rescue US economy

Washington Post political correspondent David Broder has kind words for President Barack Obama in in his opinion column Sunday, arguing that it isn't the president's fault the economy is stuck in reverse.

But the four-decade-plus veteran of Washington politics offers a startling solution to the president's political and economic woes: March off to war with Iran.

The president, who is "much smarter" and "more inspirational" than any of his opponents, could benefit from a confrontation with Iran because it would strike up a war machine that would pull the US out of economic stagnation, Broder argues.

He writes that there are "essentially" two ways that an economy can be grown: Through the natural economic cycle, and through war.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

"I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected," Broder qualifies. "But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century."

Broder's column has come in for almost instant criticism from economic and political policy experts. In a blog entry entitled "Has David Broder Lost His Mind?," Foreign Policy managing editor Blake Hounshell writes that Broder's proposal is "crazy for a number of reasons."

Writing at the same magazine, Marc Lynch argues that Broder's column is "an interesting study in how really dumb ideas bounce around Washington DC," and asserts that the Obama administration finds such an idea "ridiculous."

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research argues that Broder's idea for government-driven stimulus isn't wrong, but it doesn't need to be military in nature.

"If spending on war can provide jobs and lift the economy then so can spending on roads, weatherizing homes, or educating our kids. Yes, that's right, all the forms of stimulus spending that Broder derided so much because they add to the deficit will increase GDP and generate jobs just like the war that Broder is advocating (which will also add to the deficit)," Baker writes.

But the harshest criticism comes from Matt Duss at ThinkProgress.

"Especially in light of what has just occurred in Iraq, what kind of moral degenerate seriously suggests we get ready to do it again in neighboring Iran, just as a way to spur job growth?" he asks. "The kind who writes a regular column in the Washington Post, apparently."

WashPost: War with Iran would rescue economy | Raw Story

Told you about their economic model. Defense industry is their prime revenue maker that inducts technologies from many other secondary branches of technology.

A war machinery would only boost their economy. Iraq war was a waste of time and money simply because of reconstruction efforts in which US money was wasted.

Iran on the other hand is not Iraq and there is no excuse to launch strikes on Iran apart from them threatening to wipe Israel off map. But still it is not a strong excuse to launch strikes especially at this time.

Americans might as well want to loosen their TOT policies in arms exports and be more giving rather than lose customers due to tight restrictions .

 

[Maghrebi]

War with Iran will cost them more than Iraq and Afghanistan together. It will boost their economy in the short term, but in the long run they will loose a lot of money and their defecit will rise with another 1 or 2 trillion dollars a year. Furthermore in a war with Iran, Iran will train insurgents groups in Iraq and Afghansitan and arm them to the teeth with modern weapons like portable SAMS and anti-tanks systems.

 

[Chogy]

I totally disagree with this economic model. It is a remnant, an offshoot, of old Soviet propaganda that attempted to show top-hatted "merchants of death" getting rich off of war, a "Daddy Warbucks" model that has no basis in reality.

War is extraordinarily expensive. When the government buys a nuclear submarine, the sub makers take some profit. But the tax dollars used to buy the sub represses everyone else. Or, the govt. goes into debt to buy arms, and the average citizen is left holding the bill.

While arms makers can and do make money, defense is only a portion of their revenue. Take Boeing, for example. We know their products. Lockheed-Martin is heavily into civilian space ventures, providing launch vehicles and satellite support.

These companies compete viciously with each other, and the government plays them against each other to keep the price for hardware lower than it might otherwise be.

 

[Icarus]

War will not "Rescue" American economy, it will ruin it. Apart from the billions lost on logistics and arms supply among other general issues associated with armed conflict, investor's trust will also be shaken and they will look for other more stable market. The sudden drain of investment will force America into selling off a significant portion of it's gold reserves to act as a counter-weight to the declining value of the the dollar. This will lead to gold-prices falling dramatically across the world leading to the devaluation of numerous currencies that use bullion as currency counterweight such as Kuwaiti Dinar, Chinese Yuan, Indian Rupee/Pakistani rupee among others. This rapid devaluation will result in hyper-inflation in the affected countries further aggravating the global security situation.

Possible Result: The only country that may come out unscaved from this global economic meltdown will be Saudia Arabia since their economy depends on oil rather than gold. The gold sell off by America will have no or little affect on their economy but since the Dollar-Riyal exchange rate will suffer for the dollar but remain pretty much consistent for the Riyal, the Saudis will get more for every barrel of oil they sell off then they usually would. Hell ! It might even make them the economic giant !

Conclusion: American war on Iran does not equal economic improvement.

 

[syntax_error]

War i agree will rally the nation together......
Economy revival???? how??
everyday more spending on the front ... makes defence companies of america richer ... but American citizens poorer.... if the Defence companies are the way out to a better economy ... they need to sell to people outside America and not America itself.

example..
America buys equipment worth 10 billion during Iran war
creates 'x' no job of $4000 per month ... great ..
America get grt taxes from the company ..... great again...

America pays 10 biilion ....(collected from the people of America...)
does that work ...sum1 please clarify to me...

 

[muse]

Another war will be a disaster for the US, if it is trapped and being bled today (for the last going on 10 years), it will in quicksand in Iran from day one - without a doubt US has the firepower to overcome the military forces of Iran, but Iran is so much more than just her military forces and then there are international competitors of the US who will be delighted that the US is trapped, again, exhausting itself and perhaps alter her society and governance model to the detriment of those for whom Liberty is not some empty slogan. And if the effort is defeat Islamicans, well, it will be a magnet for them, from all over the world.

 

[Maghrebi]

One point that the writer forgets to mention is the Strait of Hormuz. When Iran gives the green light to her forces to stop the flow of oil passings through the Strait of Hormuz than the US economy will implode with oil prices of 200-300 dollars a barrel.

 

[khurasaan1]

One point that the writer forgets to mention is the Strait of Hormuz. When Iran gives the green light to her forces to stop the flow of oil passings through the Strait of Hormuz than the US economy will implode with oil prices of 200-300 dollars a barrel.

or maybe more than that....and thats the only or one of the major reason that they didnt opt for the military action till now...

 

[khurasaan1]

War with Iran would rescue US economy

Washington Post political correspondent David Broder has kind words for President Barack Obama in in his opinion column Sunday, arguing that it isn't the president's fault the economy is stuck in reverse.

But the four-decade-plus veteran of Washington politics offers a startling solution to the president's political and economic woes: March off to war with Iran.

The president, who is "much smarter" and "more inspirational" than any of his opponents, could benefit from a confrontation with Iran because it would strike up a war machine that would pull the US out of economic stagnation, Broder argues.

He writes that there are "essentially" two ways that an economy can be grown: Through the natural economic cycle, and through war.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

"I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected," Broder qualifies. "But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century."

Broder's column has come in for almost instant criticism from economic and political policy experts. In a blog entry entitled "Has David Broder Lost His Mind?," Foreign Policy managing editor Blake Hounshell writes that Broder's proposal is "crazy for a number of reasons."

Writing at the same magazine, Marc Lynch argues that Broder's column is "an interesting study in how really dumb ideas bounce around Washington DC," and asserts that the Obama administration finds such an idea "ridiculous."

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research argues that Broder's idea for government-driven stimulus isn't wrong, but it doesn't need to be military in nature.

"If spending on war can provide jobs and lift the economy then so can spending on roads, weatherizing homes, or educating our kids. Yes, that's right, all the forms of stimulus spending that Broder derided so much because they add to the deficit will increase GDP and generate jobs just like the war that Broder is advocating (which will also add to the deficit)," Baker writes.

But the harshest criticism comes from Matt Duss at ThinkProgress.

"Especially in light of what has just occurred in Iraq, what kind of moral degenerate seriously suggests we get ready to do it again in neighboring Iran, just as a way to spur job growth?" he asks. "The kind who writes a regular column in the Washington Post, apparently."

WashPost: War with Iran would rescue economy | Raw Story

But this crazy guy dont know what he was talking....He looks like a real fool ..He have no idea that this conflict will start nuclear conflict against USA around the world... as a result NO USA will exist in the world nomore...

 

[Uchiha Sasuke]

US is not attacking Iran anyway. They are pulling out of Iraq and Afganistan, their bases for this attack.

 

[muse]

Maghrebi


There is a huge propaganda that Iran or any other producer seek to shut down the straights of Hormuz - they would be the loser in such a eventuality -- in reality the propaganda serve the interests of US navy - Hormuz and Malacca are choke points for supplies reaching far East Asia (you know where that means) -- but China has built a pipeline from Turkmenistan to China and Iran has linked to that pipeline, in other words, if China can route her supplies overland, what all those US navy assets will be for?

US, for the international community, is supposed to be a force for stability, a force that can be trusted with the investments of the world - but due to her policies (Israel) and the wars of terror against Muslim majority countries, the world has lost the confidence they once had that saner heads will always prevail in the US.

 

[deckingraj]

I totally disagree with this economic model. It is a remnant, an offshoot, of old Soviet propaganda that attempted to show top-hatted "merchants of death" getting rich off of war, a "Daddy Warbucks" model that has no basis in reality.

War is extraordinarily expensive. When the government buys a nuclear submarine, the sub makers take some profit. But the tax dollars used to buy the sub represses everyone else. Or, the govt. goes into debt to buy arms, and the average citizen is left holding the bill.

While arms makers can and do make money, defense is only a portion of their revenue. Take Boeing, for example. We know their products. Lockheed-Martin is heavily into civilian space ventures, providing launch vehicles and satellite support.

These companies compete viciously with each other, and the government plays them against each other to keep the price for hardware lower than it might otherwise be.

With all due respect Sir, it may sound absurd but war's do bring economy out of recession. Believe me or not but 9/11 played a part in bringing US economy out of recession in 2001. In economic terms there is a simple logic by which it works...

Due to war Govt expenditure increases which literally means more money is pumped into the economy(especially in defense sectors). This initial pumping results in shifting the demand curve and economy moves towards realizing the potential GDP. Now because of the initial pumping the consumption expenditure of a certain section(Defense sector in this case) of the economy increases and they end up pushing the demand curve further for realizing potential GDP....in short a multiplier has been triggered....This was the same effect that US was hoping for when federal govt pumped in stimulus, however the choice of sector and the companies was pretty bad and the results were not as satisfactory as anybody would have liked....Anyhow i would say to give a read on Home Land Security Multiplier and Govt Expenditure Multiplier in case you are interested in learning about economic impact of war's for economies like US....

 

[LeGenD]

But this crazy guy dont know what he was talking....He looks like a real fool ..He have no idea that this conflict will start nuclear conflict against USA around the world... as a result NO USA will exist in the world nomore...

Do you live in a fantasy land or something?

What is so funny about this?

The so-called muslim ummah needs a wake-up call. The crusades against Islamic nations will not stop until all of them are destroyed.

Our enemies are succeeding in their mission. They removed Saddam, divided Middle-East, strengthened Israel, created unrest around Pakistan, and are now thinking about Iran.

When would muslims wake-up and do something?

 

[somebozo]

war may ruin american economy for time being but it will help it emerge stronger..go back to history of empires and one shall get a clear analysis. The looting and man power royals annexed by conquering others direct helped them to emerge stronger and bigger after a long period of stagnation.

American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the precursor to open Iran theater...imagine the energy rich corridor American will occupy from Iraq all the way to central Asia via Afghanistan? Access to cheap energy with the help of puppet governments award oil exploration contracts in guarantee to stronger economy.