1. If the EUR collapses which EU country will be the first to declare war to Germany? My bet: France2. If the PIIGS default on EUR Bonds, which will mean they were never seen as equal by their fellow Germans, it will mean they were the "new jews", since 1 euro earned by a PIIGS citizen won't have the same worth of 1 euro earned by a German citizen, which EU country will be the first to declare war to Germany? My bets: one of the following: UK, France, Spain or PortugalPay the EUR Bonds in full by the EU Treasury; Ban from the Union, for life, the PIIGS who want to default on their EUR-Sovereign Debt! Otherwise, every country should put a bunch of anarchists in riots on the streets in order to get a debt pardoning!

For making war, you need money. And at the moment, no one can afford a war. Ask to the americans how Irak, Afghanistan impacted their economy.

War is the classic manifestation of the Keynesian remedy for depression. Govt spending on the war effort reduces unemployment, offers a boost to capacity utilisation, gets spending going again.

QuoteOriginally posted by: VegawizardWar is the classic manifestation of the Keynesian remedy for depression. Govt spending on the war effort reduces unemployment, offers a boost to capacity utilisation, gets spending going again.Indeed! Yet the world has changed and the assets needed to build armaments aren't the assets needed to sustain a post-war economy. If a government borrows $1 trillion, builds factories that make low-production-run, money-is-no-object, fuel-efficiency-is-irrelevant, high-maintenance jet fighters, then those factories will be useless in a post-war economy in which the civilian market demands high-volume, inexpensive, fuel-efficient, low-maintenance aircraft. Worse, the developed world (EU, US, Japan, et al) is now based on a service economy, not a manufacturing economy so defense spending on manufacturing of armaments offers little returns in the post-war economy.The only way that Keynesian borrow-and-spend of $1 trillion works is if the spending builds a sustainable economy that produces X trillion in GDP & tax revenues in subsequent years (X = approximately $1.5 trillion in tax revenues to repay a long-term debt and roughly $7.5 trillion in GDP assuming taxes take 20% of GDP). If the assets created by the $1 trillion can't be efficiently reused in the long-term for the civilian economy, then they are a waste of money and will create an even worse economic situation in the long-term.

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXFor making war, you need money. And at the moment, no one can afford a war. Ask to the americans how Irak, Afghanistan impacted their economy.Besides, there's no oil in Germany.

They just need to fund cyberterrorist schools. Those skills will be useful post-war.P

T4A, I agree with most of your sentiments, however;through the ages populations / society are complacent during periods of plenty, and civil unrest manifests during the periods of famine / recession / depression. A tried and tested method of avoiding civil unrest is to be threatened by an 'enemy', real or imagined, that serves to re-create a sense of national unity and patriotism against the threat, and hence reduce the likelihood of domestic civil disorder.There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaulThey just need to fund cyberterrorist schools. Those skills will be useful post-war.PJust send a few swarms of Twitter units behind enemy lines.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulThey just need to fund cyberterrorist schools. Those skills will be useful post-war.PJust send a few swarms of Twitter units behind enemy lines.@F-16 your AMRAAM is right up by tail pipe@Mig-29 read and weep sucker@Private don't worry about the PTS

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulThey just need to fund cyberterrorist schools. Those skills will be useful post-war.PJust send a few swarms of Twitter units behind enemy lines.@F-16 your AMRAAM is right up by tail pipe@Mig-29 read and weep sucker@Private don't worry about the PTSlol!This reminds of the old illegal home jammers kids usedDick Turpin, Dick Turpin, over, over

QuoteOriginally posted by: VegawizardT4A, I agree with most of your sentiments, however;through the ages populations / society are complacent during periods of plenty, and civil unrest manifests during the periods of famine / recession / depression. A tried and tested method of avoiding civil unrest is to be threatened by an 'enemy', real or imagined, that serves to re-create a sense of national unity and patriotism against the threat, and hence reduce the likelihood of domestic civil disorder.There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.So very true! I totally agree with you that having an 'enemy' creates motivation to work harder, work longer, and create innovation. Yet this government stratagem of artificially psychologically boosting the economy is potentially independent of Keynesian spending. In some cases, a government can spend money on an unpopular war and suffer the long-term fiscal problems of that spending without the long-term psychological boost that would create the economic performance to repay that war debt. For example, my strong suspicion is that very few American citizens have been motivated to work harder by the Iraq or Afghanistan wars so the U.S will suffer the cost of those wars without the benefits. On the flip side, a government might create an economic enemy (e.g. the "beat the Japanese" movement in the 1980s) without significant concomitant Keynesian spending which means the government enjoys the psychological boost without the fiscal costs. Although governments can deploy the inflammatory pen and the profligate purse at the same time, they don't always do both with equal intensity or success.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaYet this government stratagem of artificially psychologically boosting the economy is potentially independent of Keynesian spending. In some cases, a government can spend money on an unpopular war and suffer the long-term fiscal problems of that spending without the long-term psychological boost that would create the economic performance to repay that war debt. For example, my strong suspicion is that very few American citizens have been motivated to work harder by the Iraq or Afghanistan wars so the U.S will suffer the cost of those wars without the benefits. There are very good reasons why those wars are "anti-Keynesian" in effect. First, although expensive, the money went to private armies of "contractors" in no-bid contracts and to corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan. No benefit in terms of an expanded economy in the USA occured. Second, the "psychological" benefit was non-existent. Most US citizens realized very quickly that the war had no purpose other than to feed war profiteers such as Halliburton, oil companies, Blackwater, and corrupt politicians. There was no working harder during the Bush administration; aside from the war profiteers, everyone else was intent on gaming the easy credit bonanza until self-destruction (not that everyone benefited equally of course, since many people at the lower end of the economic scale lost their homes and many workers lost their pensions).

what a brilliant question. what about creditor-nation declaring war first? as world history would tell, creditors choose to make their claims, and this is slightly more traditional modus operandi. a great keynesian tool to reenergize world economy (and divert attention from looming domestic problems, especially in creditor nations), as another member already mentioned. to remind of Greenspan's comment, paraphrazed, "if buldoze all those houses that you built, the reconstruction will be a great engine for the economic growth". my only concern would be that the printing press of the past is not in the hands of anyone who could declare the war (if my memory serves well, usually monetary systems get off "gold" standard (be it gold or peg or union currency). can the war be funded comfortably without this condition?