>This from Raimondo's latest:
>
>"The leftist dogma that it doesn't matter which wing of the 'ruling
>class,' the capitalists, wins out in the end is refuted by this
>reality. Capitalism, per se, doesn't breed war: indeed,
>laissez-faire requires quite the opposite. And don't think the
>ordinary capitalist profits from war: this privilege is reserved for
>those with the right government connections.
>
>"The very real economic harm done by war - the cost in wasted
>wealth, as well as wasted lives - could pull the US, already mired
>in a sharp recession, into a full-fledged depression. The stock
>market is not going to like World War III - and neither will most
>Americans once they realize that all this talk about nothing ever
>being the same again means economic catastrophe. The Vietnam War
>drained the life out of the US economy during the late sixties and
>early seventies, and the financial shock of a prolonged Mideast
>conflict could well be far worse. In the end, the markets are
>vehemently antiwar - a phenomenon that must mystify Noam Chomsky to
>no end."
>
>Doug, others -- comments?
>
><http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html>http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
Depends. A big, expensive war could be an economic disaster. A small, inexpensive one (which this is, so far) probably wouldn't. If the war breeds more terrorism, then that could be an economic disaster. The stock market took off the moment bombs began falling on Iraq in 1991, because the buildup was greeted anxiously, and the actual beginning of hostilities was seen as a relief. (Buy the rumor, sell the news, as the saying goes.) The real U.S. economy followed a similar script, though with a delay.
Raimondo does have a point, though - the bourgeoisie doesn't mind little wars against troublemakers, but it doesn't want large-scale, protracted war. The days of inter-imperialist rivalry are over, at least for now.
Doug