Here's what I was thinking about, though, guys: war is kind of a waste of resources, isn't it? Bear me out! Hear me out on this one.
You always hear the cynic say how war is good for the economy. But is it really? Have these cynics really thought this through, what they are advocating, here?
I mean, let's look at how that works. You've got all these workers making weapons, and they get paid salaries and that's good. Point conceded. There's value in that. Then, you have your weapons themselves, and that's good. Those are valuable, right? Except no! They're only valuable if you don't use them! If you've got a bunch of them, weapons, ammo, tanks etc, then you have a bunch of valuable items. Good deal. They're valuable to keep, those are in your "assets" column. That's a valuable possession. Or if you sell them: that's a valuable transaction, and then you don't have to worry about it anymore.
But in an actual war, once you put all your material in the field it's just going to get all busted up, used up - it's going to really diminish the value of your holdings! A used tank, I mean - a brand-new tank, the second you drive it off the lot onto a real battlefield...it becomes worth much less. MUCH less. Financial analysts will back me up on this, never you mind the intricacies.
And half the time, you throw all this expensive hardware out there into the field, and it just gets trashed. So really war is like, in the final analysis it's just this really elaborate, expensive junk-carcass delivery system. A way to strew smashed-up junk all over some foreign zone. And then the locals have to clean it up and haul it all away. Which - OK, admittedly, that's good for the local economy. They may even be able to realize some profits from the scavenged steel and components.
See, it's a complex issue. Not every issue is so easy and clear-cut.
That's why these are the Tough Topics. That's my guarantee, I don't shirk from that.
You always hear the cynic say how war is good for the economy. But is it really? Have these cynics really thought this through, what they are advocating, here?
I mean, let's look at how that works. You've got all these workers making weapons, and they get paid salaries and that's good. Point conceded. There's value in that. Then, you have your weapons themselves, and that's good. Those are valuable, right? Except no! They're only valuable if you don't use them! If you've got a bunch of them, weapons, ammo, tanks etc, then you have a bunch of valuable items. Good deal. They're valuable to keep, those are in your "assets" column. That's a valuable possession. Or if you sell them: that's a valuable transaction, and then you don't have to worry about it anymore.
But in an actual war, once you put all your material in the field it's just going to get all busted up, used up - it's going to really diminish the value of your holdings! A used tank, I mean - a brand-new tank, the second you drive it off the lot onto a real battlefield...it becomes worth much less. MUCH less. Financial analysts will back me up on this, never you mind the intricacies.
And half the time, you throw all this expensive hardware out there into the field, and it just gets trashed. So really war is like, in the final analysis it's just this really elaborate, expensive junk-carcass delivery system. A way to strew smashed-up junk all over some foreign zone. And then the locals have to clean it up and haul it all away. Which - OK, admittedly, that's good for the local economy. They may even be able to realize some profits from the scavenged steel and components.
See, it's a complex issue. Not every issue is so easy and clear-cut.
That's why these are the Tough Topics. That's my guarantee, I don't shirk from that.
Comments
I got shafted big time.
You can drive it back to the lot, park it in a "suggestive" pose across the street, and after sitting there for like twenty minutes with the engine idling, send me out to discuss the matter with the proprietor while you sun yourself in the open cupola.