Here's the disconnect: you're conflating those who bankroll the instigation of the war with those who actually pay for for the prosecution of the war in their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. This stands to reason, if your assertion is true. Those who invested in starting the war can only come out of it profitably if they manage to transfer wealth from other people to themselves through the prosecution of the war.
The problem here is that we're defining paying for in two different senses. I'm using it to define those who bankroll the war, you're using it in reference to the soldiers, societies, and armies that go through the manifestation of that money in terms of battles, maneuvers, and people dying in carload lots. I believe that the real winners of wars are those who bankroll them and that often the soldiers and political leaders on both sides are really net losers regardless of how the fighting winds up.
Not exactly. Let's consider, broadly, the people who bear the full costs of the war. The taxpayers, as a group, pay a much bigger share of the costs of wars than do the ardent instigators who "invest" some of their money in promoting their interests through starting a war. These instigators frequently succeed either by making money from the U.S. government spending tax money purchasing goods and services supplied by them, or else find themselves in a much more profitable position from being in a country that defeated nations previously opposed to their interests. Consider what Rothbard points out about the Morgans and the Rockefellers and their interests in starting World War II. The Morgans and the Rockefellers may have profited from the war, and may have spent money and influence in starting the war, but they didn't pay for it, in the sense of providing for the lion's share of its costs. No, the latter distinction went to the American taxpayer and the service men and women who fought directly.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment