Obviously I intend the title to be a little jarring. As we see the turmoil in Iraq, we of course hear again conservative calls for war, of going back into Iraq. There is certainly no end of trouble there now though it's hard to see how us intervening again would be beneficial.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2014/jun/24/iraq-crisis-kerry-visits-irbil-live-updates
What I recall is that in the drumbeat to war in Iraq 11 years ago-the foundation for this war had started long before. Neoconservatives had been demanding war in Iraq throughout the 90s. One thing they often said was that WWII was the 'Good War.' This was said with a rather blatant nostalgia. It's why I still don't really find the 9/11 Truthers nuts.
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bamboozle-11-War-Terror-ebook/dp/B007NZRLO8/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403603499&sr=1-3&keywords=9+11+conspiracy+books
In thinking of the concept of the 'good war' though, it occurs to me in reading Piketty that WWI gets too little respect. Don't get me wrong that war was a human tragedy of unheard of proportions-until WWII of course. Yet what is interesting is how much the world changed for good after WWI and many of these changes are for the good or at least far from clearly bad.
According to Piketty's data, the inequality of wealth-which is always harder to gauge the inequality of income-hit its nadir on the eve of WWI, but after the war we saw a significant redistribution. What's also interesting is that after two centuries of zero inflation the world begun a new period of significant inflation that has never ended.
Those monetary theorists like the Market Monetarist Bill Woosley and George Selgin-who is not technically a MMer-who call for zero inlfation are basically calling for a return to the pre 20th century monetary regime. See for example Selgin.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=592
Ok, I'm sure they would argue their not calling for all of the social and political orders and institution prior to the 20th century-slavery, aristocracy, gross economic inequality, but isn't this in reality what it amounts to?
WWI was a terrible war and I'm certainly not arguing for war as a tool of redistribution but it's interesting that this was really the event that gave us the first significant redistribution. Now, I wouldn't say that war is the cause of such salutary things but it interesting that we had such a correlation in the case of WWI. It's also interesting that a big part of the cause of the compression of wealth we saw after WWI was the emergence of inflation.
I think this is a fair theory to at least advance: could it be that zero inflation is much more efficacious for the wealthy than the poor? What is clear about WWI is that as bloody as it was, it ended the aristocracy of Old Europe-in Germany, in Austria, in Russia. Could it be that this was a necessary war-that this couldn't have been achieved by other, more peaceful means?
I don't know, I'm speculating. However, it is food for thought.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2014/jun/24/iraq-crisis-kerry-visits-irbil-live-updates
What I recall is that in the drumbeat to war in Iraq 11 years ago-the foundation for this war had started long before. Neoconservatives had been demanding war in Iraq throughout the 90s. One thing they often said was that WWII was the 'Good War.' This was said with a rather blatant nostalgia. It's why I still don't really find the 9/11 Truthers nuts.
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bamboozle-11-War-Terror-ebook/dp/B007NZRLO8/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403603499&sr=1-3&keywords=9+11+conspiracy+books
In thinking of the concept of the 'good war' though, it occurs to me in reading Piketty that WWI gets too little respect. Don't get me wrong that war was a human tragedy of unheard of proportions-until WWII of course. Yet what is interesting is how much the world changed for good after WWI and many of these changes are for the good or at least far from clearly bad.
According to Piketty's data, the inequality of wealth-which is always harder to gauge the inequality of income-hit its nadir on the eve of WWI, but after the war we saw a significant redistribution. What's also interesting is that after two centuries of zero inflation the world begun a new period of significant inflation that has never ended.
Those monetary theorists like the Market Monetarist Bill Woosley and George Selgin-who is not technically a MMer-who call for zero inlfation are basically calling for a return to the pre 20th century monetary regime. See for example Selgin.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=592
Ok, I'm sure they would argue their not calling for all of the social and political orders and institution prior to the 20th century-slavery, aristocracy, gross economic inequality, but isn't this in reality what it amounts to?
WWI was a terrible war and I'm certainly not arguing for war as a tool of redistribution but it's interesting that this was really the event that gave us the first significant redistribution. Now, I wouldn't say that war is the cause of such salutary things but it interesting that we had such a correlation in the case of WWI. It's also interesting that a big part of the cause of the compression of wealth we saw after WWI was the emergence of inflation.
I think this is a fair theory to at least advance: could it be that zero inflation is much more efficacious for the wealthy than the poor? What is clear about WWI is that as bloody as it was, it ended the aristocracy of Old Europe-in Germany, in Austria, in Russia. Could it be that this was a necessary war-that this couldn't have been achieved by other, more peaceful means?
I don't know, I'm speculating. However, it is food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment