From: gmcquary@Ingres.COM (George F. McQuary)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Those Wicked Japs
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:31:00 GMT
Reply-To: gmcquary@Ingres.COM (George F. McQuary)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

>>>  The consequences of economic warfare and military warfare are
>>>  strikingly similar. Driving American industry out of business (be it
>>>  cars, semiconductors or industrial equipment) through economic
>>>  warfare is tantamount to dropping bombs on it. In both cases the
>>>  factories are gone, the workers are unemployed and the technology is
>>>  lost. This is what America is currently up against.
>>
>>   [Are not --people are not shot, buildings are not destroyed, 
>>    disease is not rampant, rape and pillaging are still illegal ]
>
>  I think that is a very short-term and naive view; a country that dumps
>a good on another country does have to make up the price difference elsewhere...
>or the cost to the Govt. to help these people who lose their jobs.  Japan
>may believe that such a long-term effort is worth the short-term cost to their
>citizens [Example of price fixing by airlines].

The effects of warfare and economic competition are not confusable, and only
someone who has sat blissfully uninvaded through two world wars could ever
be so innocent as to believe that the worst effect of warfare is unemployment
or price fixing.

It IS pernicious michief to confuse the effects of war and economics, because
such thinking justifies a military solution to what is an economic problem
("Gee, they started it by selling us cars"). Americians should be vigilant
protecting the competitiveness of their industry. Americians should
not, however, start shaking the saber and threating to "bomb the damn japs
cuze they took away my job at the factory".

Not only is this attitude by Americians repungant and insulting, but is self
defeating as it gives further support to Japanese conservatives calling for
continuance of protection for japanese industries.

Many countries have gone to war to squash economic competition from what
they considered an easy military pushover (Japan's attack on the US is
in this category, strangely enough). Invariably, the attacking county after
promising a quick and easy victory to solve their problems ("throw a few
bombs at 'em") has found that it has underestimated the will of the defenders
to resist, and more importantly the economic cost. Read James Dunnigan's 
history of wars and why some began and others were avoided for the specifics
("How to Wage Peace" --a rather tacky title for an otherwise interesting
and informative book).

Any money that would be expended during a war is more profitable if directly
invested in manufacturing and production. The same amount of money is even more
profitable and results in greater economic gain if invested in education,
research and development. So even how a country competes under economics
is different.

But Rambo didn't carry a diploma (although he did still lose the war), and
controlling your population is much easier when uniting them against a common
military foe, whereas educating them gives you an unrully people
capable of not only thinking for themselves, but questioning the very people
in power themselves. Even if they do make you more money.

Two minutes of hate, anyone? (an Orwellian reference)

--
George F. McQuary 
"He is mad, bad and dangerous to know." -Lady Caroline Lamb