A post by the always excellent Brad Delong got me thinking about anti-stimulus arguments.

A common argument on the right is that it was WWII that ended The Great Depression^TM not New Deal^TM stimulus, and therefor claiming the efficacy of New Deal stimulus is not an argument for modern stimulus. On the face of it it’s hard to argue that WWII wasn’t at least part of the equation here and if you leave it at that, well you might just say, “Yeah, it was WWII, not the New Deal that saved the day.”

The problem, and the big thing that everyone misses (including myself until I had an epiphany this morning) is that while it’s certainly sad and deranged stimulus, WWII was stimulus. In fact it was deficit stimulus on a massive scale.

That is, the “war matériel” was not donated out of the goodness of the hearts of the various businesses, but rather was funded by the deficit spending of both Alied and Axis governments. It was also funded by extraordinary tax levies, as high as 87% on upper incomes. See (click to see full size):

Tax For Victory, 1943

Taxes aside, the point is that the argument that WWII ended the depression is actually an argument for stimulus and in fact an argument that stimulus ended the depression. Again deranged stimulus, but stimulus nonetheless.

Yes, on a moral level it’s hard not to argue that said stimulus ideally as Gigot phrases it, “might have put it to more productive” uses, but given the economy and the unwillingness at the time, without other non-war stimulus to fill the gap it’s also hard to argue that the unspent capital would have magically gone to other “job-creating uses”. That is, given the bleak outlook for employers, without WWII or further New Deal stimulus, one has to severely doubt the hoarded (or un-borrowed deficit) capital of the Depression would have actually been used to produce jobs.

The point is, something had to be done, and even though (at least in theory) WWII wasn’t planned, it provided a convenient substitute for other potential deficit stimulus.

Of course again, going back to the taxes above, it wouldn’t be deficit spending if we were willing to tax more, even temporarily. And in fact through much of the great boom following WWII, taxes remained extremely high both on personal and corporate levels. Moreover it was considered patriotic, a duty, to pay those taxes for the benefit of the whole.

But nevermind, we live in new (and more selfish) days.

With all due respect to the President, I’ve got a question to ask:

When has this worked?

I admit I have a degree of ambivalence – I do think Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn Rule” applies (ie: “You break it, you bought it”)(somehow incidentally I doubt they have that rule). We put our foot in it both in Afghanistan and Iraq and to some extent we’re responsible for putting the pieces back together.

On the other hand, again, “When has this worked?” What historical example can be given where a long term and unpopular occupier has “won” against entrenched insurgents? Let’s look at the historical examples:

• Korea (US)? Nope.
• Indochina (French)? Nope.
• Vietnam (US)? Nope.
• Algeria (French)? Nope.
• Afghanistan (Soviets)? Nope.
• Iraq (US)? Nope.

So, what “miracle” is going to make this little gem of a war different? Particularly when we have a large part of the Muslim world working against us and funneling in arms and aggressors (hmmm, sounds a lot like a certain previous Afghanistan engagement alluded to above).

There are only two ways in reality to “win” this, one of which is already too late:

1. Get in, kick out the Taliban and Al Qaeda, rebuild the country winning hearts and minds in the process, and get the hell out.
2. Be absolutely ruthless.

Option 1 has long since passed. GW blew that chance big time.

Option 2 we don’t have the stomach for, which since it’s immoral, I am happy about. Honestly the only way to win this at this point would be to just kill, destroy, and demoralize with impunity. We’d have to be everything we claim not to be. Frankly we’d have to be like Saddam Hussein – again absolutely ruthless.

However our current tack isn’t much better. Sure, it isn’t ruthless, but it slowly and more silently does much the same thing. Thousands of innocents still die, and god knows what’s happening under the covers. In the end it’s the worst of both worlds – the death and destruction still happens but with none of the winning to go along with it. It’s just a lot more palatable for the majority of Americans who believe the patriotic schlock of moral superiority they feed us.

So what is the definition of insanity? Thinking you can win a type of war that has never been won, over, and over, and over, and over again.

Andrew Sullivan says in regards to the horrible killings in Texas:

These human beings – citizens who risked their lives for the rest of us – were gunned down defenseless as they sought medical help. Because of religious fanaticism. [emphasis added]

I disagree. This man was (is) sick. It may have been a convenient excuse, but my guess is if he was an atheist he still would have found a reason.

That’s not to say that fanaticism wasn’t a catalyst, or isn’t a problem. I just personally don’t believe this really comes down to religion, nor is it ultimately helpful to frame it that way.

On the other hand, I don’t blame Andrew for doing so either.

Wiki Commons - Boeing C-17

I’ll give credit to Boeing for actually identifying themselves on this “astro-turf”:

http://c17foramerica.com

However, I would really rather see the money go toward something:

1. That the government wants.
2. That doesn’t create “regressive” jobs (ie: jobs that spread out the wages a bit as these tend to go to higher wage workers).
3. That doesn’t involve helping us kill people.
4. That actually benefits all of us a little more directly (eg: roads, schools, etc.).

Not that I want to see anyone lose their jobs, however this is just more sucking of the military teat (as if that slice of the pie isn’t big enough).

Let’s imagine a few alterations in this NYT article:

WASHINGTON TEHRAN – The Obama Ahmajinedad administration plans to tell Iran the United States this week that it must open a newly revealed nuclear enrichment site to international inspectors “within weeks,” according to senior administration officials. The administration will also tell Tehran Washington that inspectors must have full access to the key personnel who put together the clandestine plant and to the documents surrounding its construction, the officials said Saturday.

The demands, following the revelation Friday of the secret facility at a military base near the unholy city of Qum Los Angeles, set the stage for the next chapter of a diplomatic drama that has toughened the West’s Middle East’s posture and heightened tensions with Iran the United States. The first direct negotiations between the United States Iran and Iran the United States in 30 years are scheduled to open in Geneva on Thursday.

Because undoubtedly we have some secret sites that the rest of the world doesn’t know about. In that case, what makes our sites ok and their’s not? Would we be willing to open anything even remotely like this (or for that matter even slightly military) to international inspection?

Our demands aren’t exactly fair given we already have nukes, thus in all honesty we can’t obviate any moral equivalence saying that anyone else should not (and don’t think Iran and the rest of the world isn’t aware of the hypocrisy here).

The point of this isn’t because I want Iran to have nukes. Honestly I wish nobody had nukes, but yes I’m particularly un-fond of the idea of countries like Iran having them. However let’s not delude ourselves that this is based on some sort of solid or just legal framework. We have no cause for “righteousness” indignation here – it quite simply is a case of “might makes right”.

If that’s the case, so be it, but let’s at least be honest with ourselves.