The Economics of War | Matthew McCaffrey

[@TheOtherOne122]

As an Econ student, I wish universities would have courses in war economics. Would be a class that people in economics and military studies could take

[@LukeSwasbrook]

Great talk, thanks Matthew!

[@gamerasanders8697]

I didn't know Matt Dillon gained a few pounds and became a great economist

[@muskduh]

Thanks for the video

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

What about sociology and political science ?aren't those also branches of praxeology ?

[@johnfehringer]

This guy grossly meanders around the point in the name of intellectual hubris.

[@jdstar6352]

I was wondering why anyone would by sucked into this tottering structure of untruths, but after listening to this lecture I think I get it: it's the cheap cynicism. At the risk of offering my own cheap cynicism, how's this: The "Free Market" IS war, war by the rich on the poor.

[@senselessnothing]

This lecture exemplifies well why I consider austrians to be simplistic in some of their prescriptions. They have great insights, but they lack nuance. The fact is that throughout the natural world coercion is almost the only way of animals associating with each other unless they don't compete for the same resources whereby cooperation arises naturally. We as humans have made cooperation the central theme of our species but it's never going to be the only theme. What happens when you live in a society like the US where there is large socioeconomic difference and wide genetic disparity largely along the same lines? there will inevitably be conflict and distaste from one group to another. This may result in groups voting the money of others into their pockets and protesting the inequality, simply because there is too much to gain and nothing to lose. We very well know from dunbar's number that humans cannot have well established social relations with more than a few hundred people, this necessarily will mean that one cannot easily care about anyone outside their extended social circle. This is another way conflict can spring up. Another way is IQ, we know from 100 years of military and academic research that there is no large class of jobs in a western society that people with IQ below 85 can do, which means that they are invariably jobless and unable to prosper, conflict can arise easily in such cases but since they lack intelligence it's not exactly a powerful group. Conflicts are central to human associations since we are competing for the same resources. Western morality and social norms have limited it to a great extent, but it's undeniably still there.

[@creatifetudes8553]

Democracy my ass

[@jdstar6352]

We don't "understand" that wars are "purposeful." That isn't a truth, although this lecture states it as such. The purposefulness of war is an a priori assumption, here depicted as home truth. It probably isn't true. Consider either WWI or WWII. Both appear to have begun as belligerents being aggressive and belligerent and throwing their weight around, rattling sabers and generally behaving like thugs on drugs. BUT stopping just short of precipitating outright war, mostly because the costs and risks of war are so profound that not even the craziest riverboat gambler invites that sort of risk to the table. And then Party A, ratting his saber, makes first contact with Party B, rattling his saber, and suddenly real blood is flowing, copiously. That definitely is the origin story of WWI, and probably the origin story of WWII as well (Hitler was focused on going east, into the USSR; he wasn't looking for or planning for a war of conquest to his west, etc.). So the first canon of "praxiology," i.e purposefulness, is probably not appropriate here.

[@Shadowfanification]

Ah yes we accidentally put all these men facing each other with guns in tgeir hands. It was purely unconscious and reactive.

[@Prairielander]

Well Germany knew France was a great threat during the 1930's. They always did figure there would be a war in the west. They feared France would not accept their rearmament and also would create a second front. That was actually their great concern that Britain/France would have declared war much sooner. But to Hitler's surprise he found how weak the western allies were and mostly unwilling to fight. That is why a non-aggression pact was signed with the Soviet Union to clear the way for war with the west.

[@kenzie1228]

I disagree, wars stop not because the risks became too high, it simply stops when there is a clear winner and loser. Ww2 for example, immidiately ends after the bombing of hiroshima nagasaki, had it be done sooner the war would end earlier as well.