The Angry White Man

On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
Ken

Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
option, I suppose?

Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
business interests.


Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
much economic damage to everyone involved.

Written in 1912.

-JTD

On Feb 25, 12:29 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
Ken

Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
option, I suppose?

Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
business interests.

Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
much economic damage to everyone involved.

Written in 1912.

-JTD

Messy divorces are proof that emotions trumps economic interest every
time.

Dan

On Feb 25, 12:52 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 25, 12:29 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
Ken

Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
option, I suppose?

Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
business interests.

Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
much economic damage to everyone involved.

Written in 1912.

-JTD

Messy divorces are proof that emotions trumps economic interest every
time.

Dan

Maybe not *every* time, but it only has to happen some of the time for
Bad Things to result.

It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
economics texts.

-JTD

On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
On Feb 25, 12:52 pm, " wrote:



On Feb 25, 12:29 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
Ken

Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
option, I suppose?

Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
business interests.

Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
much economic damage to everyone involved.

Written in 1912.

-JTD

Messy divorces are proof that emotions trumps economic interest every
time.

Dan

Maybe not *every* time, but it only has to happen some of the time for
Bad Things to result.

It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
economics texts.

-JTD

Wait a second ...

This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.

WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.

Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
as validation of their claims.

Of course the US had Jim Crow and segregation at the time -- but
evidence of inconsistency in application of a fundamental principal --
that All men are endowed by their creator, etc. -- does not invalidate
the principal.

Of course the Allies included the Stalin's dictatorship. But the enemy
of my enemy is my friend. Remember -- the USSR joined the allies
*after* Hitler invaded Russia in 1940.

Read Paul Fussel and a host of others who realized when they opened
the concentration camps (in Europe and in Asia) that theirs was a
crusade -- not a mere squabble over territory.

And anyone who says different is itchin for a fight.

Dan

On Feb 25, 3:41 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty

It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
economics texts.

-JTD

Wait a second ...

This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.

WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.

Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
as validation of their claims.


snip

I think we may be in violent agreement here. :-)

The point I was trying to make was that wars happen for many, many
reasons, and that national leaders have to consider many, many
different dimensions when they're making decisions. Reducing the
entire thing to economics, as the poster I was initially replying to
did, is a dangerous oversimplification. All I was doing with that
part of my post is illustrating my point by looking at *one* of the
other dimensions that led to war between the U.S. and the Japanese
Empire in the Pacific. I did not mean to suggest that there weren't
any others, or that politics alone could explain the war any more than
economics could, or that the Pacific War was a "clash of Empire".
(For one thing, it's a bit hard to have a "clash of Empire" when one
party is in the process of giving up its empire in the area, as the
U.S. was doing at the time WWII kicked off.) There are a lot of other
dimensions that I could have picked, and many more if I wanted to look
at the Japanese decision to attack the U.S. I was just making a point
about the causes of war in general, and the dangers of looking at one
particular factor as the end all and be all.

As a side note, I would agree with you that anyone who says the U.S.
and Japan were ideologically equivalent at the time simply hasn't done
the reading.

-JTD

On Feb 25, 4:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
On Feb 25, 3:41 pm, " wrote:



On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty
It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
economics texts.

-JTD

Wait a second ...

This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.

WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.

Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
as validation of their claims.

snip

I think we may be in violent agreement here. :-)

The point I was trying to make was that wars happen for many, many
reasons, and that national leaders have to consider many, many
different dimensions when they're making decisions. Reducing the
entire thing to economics, as the poster I was initially replying to
did, is a dangerous oversimplification. All I was doing with that
part of my post is illustrating my point by looking at *one* of the
other dimensions that led to war between the U.S. and the Japanese
Empire in the Pacific. I did not mean to suggest that there weren't
any others, or that politics alone could explain the war any more than
economics could, or that the Pacific War was a "clash of Empire".
(For one thing, it's a bit hard to have a "clash of Empire" when one
party is in the process of giving up its empire in the area, as the
U.S. was doing at the time WWII kicked off.) There are a lot of other
dimensions that I could have picked, and many more if I wanted to look
at the Japanese decision to attack the U.S. I was just making a point
about the causes of war in general, and the dangers of looking at one
particular factor as the end all and be all.

As a side note, I would agree with you that anyone who says the U.S.
and Japan were ideologically equivalent at the time simply hasn't done
the reading.

-JTD

OK, thanks for the clarification.

My WW2 reading was buttressed by my Father's experience (DEs and Subs
in the Pacific).

Dan

On Feb 25, 5:01 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



On Feb 25, 3:41 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty
It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
economics texts.

-JTD

Wait a second ...

This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.

WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.

Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
as validation of their claims.

snip

I think we may be in violent agreement here. :-)

The point I was trying to make was that wars happen for many, many
reasons, and that national leaders have to consider many, many
different dimensions when they're making decisions. Reducing the
entire thing to economics, as the poster I was initially replying to
did, is a dangerous oversimplification. All I was doing with that
part of my post is illustrating my point by looking at *one* of the
other dimensions that led to war between the U.S. and the Japanese
Empire in the Pacific. I did not mean to suggest that there weren't
any others, or that politics alone could explain the war any more than
economics could, or that the Pacific War was a "clash of Empire".
(For one thing, it's a bit hard to have a "clash of Empire" when one
party is in the process of giving up its empire in the area, as the
U.S. was doing at the time WWII kicked off.) There are a lot of other
dimensions that I could have picked, and many more if I wanted to look
at the Japanese decision to attack the U.S. I was just making a point
about the causes of war in general, and the dangers of looking at one
particular factor as the end all and be all.

As a side note, I would agree with you that anyone who says the U.S.
and Japan were ideologically equivalent at the time simply hasn't done
the reading.

-JTD

OK, thanks for the clarification.

My WW2 reading was buttressed by my Father's experience (DEs and Subs
in the Pacific).

Hats off to him, then. You don't hear nearly enough about what a
crucial difference the "Silent Service" made during the war years.
Have you read Blair's _Silent Victory_? It's probably the best single
history of U.S. sub operations in the Pacific during WWII, and if you
haven't it's well worth the read. Just got reprinted a few years
back, so you can even get a copy without promising someone your
firstborn son.

-JTD

On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
Ken

Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
option, I suppose?

Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
business interests.

Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
much economic damage to everyone involved.
Written in 1912.
-JTD

That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
ICBM's because the other are guys are.
Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
told they should.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
:



That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
ICBM's because the other are guys are.
Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
told they should.


What bout fuedin'?

Bertie

On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
:



That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
ICBM's because the other are guys are.
Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
told they should.

What bout fuedin'?

Bertie

Now that's jes plain fun...