I know there are obvious answers but who exactly does the cash go to in the end?

It must pay someone handsomely for us being constantly at war or we wouldnt do it.

I’m sure it won’t do sales of the Typhoon any harm. 😕

Also, when was the last time the UK wasn’t at war in some way?

Define “at war in some way”? Does being in Bosnia, or intervention in Sierra Leone count? Northern Ireland?

Good question though.

Also, when was the last time the UK wasn’t at war in some way?

as a nation built by successive invasions and the settlement from angles/danes/normans etc.. right up to the expansion of the Empire we have always had some Military action going on or brewing.

I don’t think we have been formally declared “at war” since WW2 although we’ve been involved in many “actions”

I’m sure it won’t do sales of the Typhoon any harm

Possibly, althought the chances of tranche 3b happening are still very remote.

All the defense industry and their suppliers are the obvious answer to the first question. Wars = UORs (Urgent Operational Requirements) = pay day for the defense industry

Involved in armed conflict is the definition that I’m going for.

the Rothschilds.

…and several other banking cartels.

Possibly, althought the chances of tranche 3b happening are still very remote.

That’s not what our Sales Director keeps saying as he moves the order prediction to the right every month! 😉

ebay?

I don’t think we have been formally declared “at war” since WW2 although we’ve been involved in many “actions”

Falklands.

That’s not what our Sales Director keeps saying as he moves the order prediction to the right every month!

good luck to him then 😉 we just aren’t scheduling for it

By the latest count 110 Cruise missiles have to be replaced and I bet they don’t come cheap 🙁

To OP, the media …

To the OP, me.

Inasmuch as war involves waste/destruction of productive capital, creation/incurring of long-term liabilities, an increase in the cost of finance, creation of additional risk and uncertainty, the expansion of the state’s share of the economy as a whole and the creation of additional government debt, then war is not good for the economy as a whole.

It is not comparable to a Keynesian Demand Management-type investment into infrastructure (a/k/a spend your way out of recession) programme because it’s not investment into infrastructure/productive capital that raises the capacity of the economy, it’s short-term consumption. It’s more like the Broken Window Parable, except a lot more money is spent on equipping the kid with the stone to break the window in the first place.

War involves shovelling large amounts of government money into the accounts of the military-industrial complex. Most of those corporations are either substantially foreign-owned (which isn’t much good for the UK economy) and/or subsidy junkies (ditto).

As an aside, Clegg and Cameron are ending up imitating George W Bush’s first presidency: coming to power on a we’ll-slash-and-burn-government-spending platform, they’ll end up spending an amount of money on foreign military operations that will make the cost of having an extra social worker in Northampton or an NHS slim-down-fatty advisor in Bangor look truly insignificant.

everyone except me..

It is not comparable to a Keynesian Demand Management-type investment into infrastructure (a/k/a spend your way out of recession) programme because it’s not investment into infrastructure/productive capital that raises the capacity of the economy, it’s short-term consumption. It’s more like the Broken Window Parable, except a lot more money is spent on equipping the kid with the stone to break the window in the first place.

I agree. But fiscal stimulus is such an effective means of bringing life into an economy, that even something as destructive as war can have a positive effect. It is no coincidence that the US economy didn’t really recover from the Wall St Crash of 1929 until the US went to war in 1941. It is just the sheer amount of money which going to war involves, that gets the results. Despite the fact that there are indeed far more effective and productive ways for governments to invest.

As an aside, Clegg and Cameron are ending up imitating George W Bush’s first presidency: coming to power on a we’ll-slash-and-burn-government-spending platform, they’ll end up spending an amount of money on foreign military operations that will make the cost of having an extra social worker in Northampton or an NHS slim-down-fatty advisor in Bangor look truly insignificant.

It’s a little unfair to suggest that George W Bush was the first to do such a thing. Thatcher did exactly the same 30 years ago. Right in the midst of massive public cuts, Thatcher went to war. No costs were spared, and money was not an issue at all, despite the fact she had claimed that the country was broke. There is always a war chest, but never a health chest, housing chest, eduction chest, etc.

this short video explains it quite well, its written for america but its true here too. in fact the people at the top are the same anyway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sljjNb8dGs8

i seem to recall the fact that we have been involved in conflict constantly since the end of the second world war with the exception of one year..which i think was in the eighties.
could be bollox though.

There were no wars in the sixties and seventies other than the odd ‘end of colonial era’ skirmishes. We even managed to keep out of the Vietnam War (God bless you Harold Wilson) The Australians weren’t so lucky.

kinda glossing over the cold war. Glad that was a non event. Had potential for some serious consequences.

BP will make a huge amount of money, they had a $900 million deal potentially worth up to £15 billion to explore the oil in Libya, which is why up until the last couple of weeks they and the UK and US had been bending over to keep Gadaffi happy, so now that we’ve peed him off they’ll be gagging to make sure he is ousted so they can keep their oil interests there. If he kept power having fallen out with the UK/US it would be disaster for BP and ergo UK/US oil revenues.

BP will make a huge amount of money, they had a $900 million deal potentially worth up to £15 billion to explore the oil in Libya

No – war costs them more in finance costs, insurance costs, security management costs and then there’s always the increased political risk of being fleeced (as they were in Russia, for example), having the licence terminated, having pipelines/facilities extorted/shut down/blown up (as in Nigeria, for example) etc.

Equally, the argument that Teh West routinely overthrows dictatorial governments to ensure access to oil is usually without merit. Dictators have a shared interest in keeping the oil flowing onto the world market because they don’t have a wide revenue base (because they don’t have legitimacy) and they need foreign companies to help do it because they don’t have a domestic O&G sector that can take on these projects without assistance. That’s why Equatorial Guinea, Saudi, Turkmenistan etc all happily bobble along with no interference. The real problem comes when existing property rights are interfered with: Iran, Venezuela, Iraq (after invasion of Kuwait)…

i seem to recall the fact that we have been involved in conflict constantly since the end of the second world war with the exception of one year..which i think was in the eighties.
could be bollox though.

I’d be very surprised if our armed forces haven’t been involved in conflicts constantly since then. Obviously we don’t get told about every rumble we do get involved in and you can guarantee some of our covert forces at the very least usually nip over to hotspots to report on the feeling on the ground and either keep the peace or help push the factions in the right direction.

There were no wars in the sixties and seventies other than the odd ‘end of colonial era’ skirmishes. We even managed to keep out of the Vietnam War (God bless you Harold Wilson) The Australians weren’t so lucky.

They were more than skirmishes maybe not wars but people were still getting killed and dont forget the ongoing troubles (at the time)in NI

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html

at the moment it’ll be the investors and sharholders of the fuel companies and the major defense contractors like:

General Dynamics Corporation
MBDA Missile Systems
Raytheon

Me

My impression that there are 3 groups that profit from war:

1) International Bankers (Federal Reserve, Rothschild’s, Goldman Sachs, etc)

2) Arms Companies

3) Oil Companies

And of course, the political leaders/advsiors who take bribes, or have a “slice of the cake” with regards to any of the above.

Why do you think banks make more from war than peace?

No – war costs them more in finance costs, insurance costs, security management costs and then there’s always the increased political risk of being fleeced (as they were in Russia, for example), having the licence terminated, having pipelines/facilities extorted/shut down/blown up (as in Nigeria, for example) etc.

I dunno, I think BP will be pretty glad if they can bypass gadaffi, he is a nutter and he certainly didn’t hesitate in banning swiss oil interests in Libya at the drop of a hat over a relatively minor political incident. Now that Cameron has said he must go BP’ll be rubbing their hands in anticipation of not having to tiptoe around the libyan oil system but would be totally screwed if he didn’t get the boot.

seem to recall the fact that we have been involved in conflict constantly since the end of the second world war with the exception of one year..which i think was in the eighties.
could be bollox though.

IIRC it was only 15 minutes!

Me my share portfolio of oil exploration companies is marching up…….fast 😳

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OesTFysRzbc[/video]

banks Love war

I would imagine Libyan undertakers are presently quids in