War Economy

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
Enforcer Talen
Warlock
Posts: 10285
Joined: 2002-07-05 02:28am
Location: Boston
Contact:

War Economy

Post by Enforcer Talen »

I think this is the right forum, but boot as necessary.

From time to time, I read how a country is in a war economy, prices locked, production set, labor running at close to 100%. . . and when they stop, it usually causes some sort of catastrophic depression. The latest example Ive heard of was from the Salvation War thread, which leads me to my question -

If you know all of these bad things are going to happen, why stop? Admittedly, having dozens of mothballed divisions somewhere is a waste of labor, so you might put it into building super-colliders or something like the New Deal; but why do you stop a war economy?
Image
This day is Fantastic!
Myers Briggs: ENTJ
Political Compass: -3/-6
DOOMer WoW
"I really hate it when the guy you were pegging as Mr. Worst Case starts saying, "Oh, I was wrong, it's going to be much worse." " - Adrian Laguna
User avatar
open_sketchbook
Jedi Master
Posts: 1145
Joined: 2008-11-03 05:43pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: War Economy

Post by open_sketchbook »

Because a war economy runs on imaginary money, loans, war bonds, endless shortages and occasionally just plan old forced labour, and that has consequences. When you finally stop, there will be more people owed money then there is money, and you'll have to face that music sooner or later. Sooner is better, as the longer you let it go on the worse it'll get.
1980s Rock is to music what Giant Robot shows are to anime
Think about it.

Cruising low in my N-1 blasting phat beats,
showin' off my chrome on them Coruscant streets
Got my 'saber on my belt and my gat by side,
this here yellow plane makes for a sick ride
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: War Economy

Post by MKSheppard »

Because you'd like to build something other than tanks planes and guns?

Because people like to buy new model cars, refrigerators, and something better than VICTORY CLOCKS?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: War Economy

Post by Sea Skimmer »

A war economy means not only cutting off the supply of civilian goods, but also forgoing normal investment and maintenance cycles for existing factories and especially for transportation infrastructure. You just work that shit into the ground, and put a band aid on anything that breaks. Whatever construction resources exist will all go into building entirely new plants, most of which are only useful for making weapons.

This means after a few years, the existing stuff is literally falling apart and the whole industrial system will just begin to crush under its own poorly up kept weight no matter what you do. The idea is the surge of weapons you get should let you win before that happens. If it doesn’t and you maintain a perpetual war economy then you end up like North Korea sooner then later. North Korea only lasted so long because of Soviet support.

However it is entirely possible to sustain a high but non mobilization level of spending for a very long time. Up to 10% of the GDP is within reason, which is about double what the US spends today.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: War Economy

Post by Simon_Jester »

Yeah. The only way to take war-economy levels of control and make them last is to go full command economy, at which point instead of just taking as much GDP as possible and turning it into weapons (or particle accelerators or highways or whatever), you're doling it out to everything. So that instead of just ordering factory workers to make machine guns and tanks, you're ordering them to make spare parts for their own factories. You're ordering them to make civilian automobiles. You're ordering them to do more or less the same things they'd do anyway in a free market economy.

Whether command economies can work is a separate question... but generally, a capitalist state that goes into "war economy" mode won't want to transition to a command economy after the shooting stops.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
ShadowDragon8685
Village Idiot
Posts: 1183
Joined: 2010-02-17 12:44pm

Re: War Economy

Post by ShadowDragon8685 »

Caveat: If you don't know cars, this won't make any sense.


Maintaining a war economy to fight a war is like flooring the gas in your car and keeping the gears low so that the tachometer red-lines. It accelerates you a lot faster and more powerfully, but you should only do it if you need to - say, trying to rejoin traffic averaging 75 miles an hour from a standing stop on the side of the road, or to avoid someone barreling at you from the side. It will fuck your engine if you let it redline for any length of time, but if the alternative is becoming a road traffic statistic, a little risk and wear on your engine is worth it.

That's how it is with a war economy. You're imposing financial and infrastructrual strain on your country, in exchange for building guns, tanks and planes right now!

It's good if you're fighting a war and the alternative is getting out-produced. Not so hot as a way of life.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Dude...

Way to overwork a metaphor Shadow. I feel really creeped out now.
I am an artist, metaphorical mind-fucks are my medium.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: War Economy

Post by K. A. Pital »

Not even command economies (outside of DPRK whom Skimmer already mentioned) maintained a war economy for a substantial length of time. It's impossible to do without fucking up your nation.

Yeah, you can order people around but that's what happens anyway in any economy - the economy shifts to conversion and whether you like it or not, there's a depression of sorts, or at least the costs of conversion to bear. Even command economies bear the cost of conversion when you disband huge divisions, close down tank plants and shift people to other plants. It can't be done via handwaving and without a cost.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
mingo
Jedi Knight
Posts: 730
Joined: 2005-10-15 08:05am
Location: San Francisco of Michigan
Contact:

Re: War Economy

Post by mingo »

It seemed to me, that the Viet nam war was our attempt at "not stopping", which is why we had that lovely recession/depression under the Carter administration
Courage is not the absence of fear, but the conquering of it.

And the day came when the risk it took to remain tight inside the bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
-Anais Nin
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12267
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Re: War Economy

Post by Surlethe »

In addition to the sectoral shift Stas mentioned (workers laid off from tank factories will take some time to find reemployment at car factories), there's also the fact that the economy is coming down from a high. When you go to a war economy, you squeeze as much as you can out of the economy; unemployment falls far below the natural level, manufacturing rises far above its efficient level, and so forth. So when you transition away from a war economy, you're necessarily going to see a contraction in economic activity, if only because the economy is readjusting to its natural level. Here's an analogy: if you've been boiling water, its temperature will drop when you turn off the burner, even though it's not freezing.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: War Economy

Post by Sea Skimmer »

mingo wrote:It seemed to me, that the Viet nam war was our attempt at "not stopping", which is why we had that lovely recession/depression under the Carter administration
From 1952-1959 the US spent over 10% of its GDP on the military every year. That would be our main not stopping time. Spending levels during the Vietnam War were for the most part lower then those of the early 1960s and 1950s. It’s kind of impressive, the US was able to spend more money building nuclear weapons and delivery systems then it needed to spend to send a 500,000 man army into battle.

Spending as a percentage of the GDP then dropped every year from 1968 until 1981 when a slight increase began.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Post Reply