The Price of Conflict

[PLATO]

Conflicts around the world cost $14.3tn (£9.1tn) last year, 13% of world GDP, says a survey on global peace.

That amount is equivalent to the combined economies of Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, the report by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) said.

The divide between the most peaceful and the least peaceful nations was deepening, the annual report added.

Iceland is the world's most peaceful nation, whilst Syria is the least.

Libya saw the most severe deterioration over the course of 2014, according to the Australia-based IEP says.


The Middle East and North Africa now ranks as the world's most violent region, overtaking South Asia which received that ranking for 2013.

Conflict killed 180,000 people in 2014, compared with 49,000 in 2010, the report said.

Deaths caused by terrorism increased by 61% in 2013, the report said, with the loss of almost 18,000 lives - mostly in just five countries, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria.

******

Figures compared

If the world decreased in violence by 10%, it would generate £1.43tn, says the IEP. This amount is equivalent to:
◾ Six times the total value of Greece's bailout
◾ Ten times the total official development assistance from rich to poor countries
◾ Three times the total earnings of the 1.1 billion people living in extreme poverty under $1.25 a day

Source: IEP

******

The most surprising finding, said IEP Chief Executive Steve Killelea, was the "inequality with peace" around the world.

He said some countries in Western Europe had now reached "quite historic levels of peace", enjoying the lowest levels of murder rates and money spent on security "probably in the countries' history".

But Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, South Sudan and the Central African Republic had all become more violent in the past year, the report said.

The IEP said the total costs of conflict amounted to 13.4% of world GDP.

"Large increases in costs have occurred due to deaths from internal conflict, IDPs [internally displaced people] and refugee support, UN peacekeeping and GDP losses from conflict," the report said.

It also noted that the cost of supporting some 50 million refugees and IDPs - the largest number since WWII - had risen 267% since 2008 to $128bn.

The report also found that if global violence were to decrease by 10%, it would effectively give the world economy an additional $1.43 trillion - more than six times the amount needed to wipe out Greece's debts, and three times more than the total earnings of some 1.1bn of the world's poorest people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-33161837

It would be amazing to see what a world at peace could accomplish......

[loinburger]

I wonder how that compares to previous generations, e.g. what percent of medieval Europe's GDP was put into knights/castles/etc.

[Dinner]

The conflicts against entrenched dictatorships in the middle east would have eventually exploded no matter what but it is also clear that the Iraq war is what set off this round.

[Dinner]

I wonder how that compares to previous generations, e.g. what percent of medieval Europe's GDP was put into knights/castles/etc.

Probably much higher as a percentage plus armed conflict has actually been trending down over time.

[C0ckney]

that's a good question. i think countries like the UK are likely to have spent more historically and less now, but i suspect for the US it's grown over time and will be much higher than it was in say 1800.

also if one goes back far enough it becomes difficult to compare; it's very difficult to make a comparison between a money based economy and a land based one (so you might be able to make a meaningful comparison with the mediaeval byzantine or arab empires, but not with the frankish one). adam smith observed that pastoral peoples produced enormous armies because the only thing that a ruler could do with the social surplus was to maintain men, a greater part of whom would be warriors.

[loinburger]

It would also be tricky to classify certain things as military or non-military, like medieval tournaments that were one part military training and one part circus.

[The Mad Monk]

...and peasants were one part farm machinery and one part...peasants.

[Ben Kenobi]

that's a good question. i think countries like the UK are likely to have spent more historically and less now, but i suspect for the US it's grown over time and will be much higher than it was in say 1800.

Well, you have to consider the numerator. The economy is much, much larger now. Even with smaller overall militaries, you'd have spending that was quite high.

I'd wager that military spending in the UK as a sector of the economy probably peaked with Henry VIII.

[PLATO]

The conflicts against entrenched dictatorships in the middle east would have eventually exploded no matter what but it is also clear that the Iraq war is what set off this round.

What exactly did you psy-ops guys do to those people!?!

[Bosh]

that's a good question. i think countries like the UK are likely to have spent more historically and less now, but i suspect for the US it's grown over time and will be much higher than it was in say 1800.

also if one goes back far enough it becomes difficult to compare; it's very difficult to make a comparison between a money based economy and a land based one (so you might be able to make a meaningful comparison with the mediaeval byzantine or arab empires, but not with the frankish one). adam smith observed that pastoral peoples produced enormous armies because the only thing that a ruler could do with the social surplus was to maintain men, a greater part of whom would be warriors.

This isn't just war though, it also includes violent crime and all security costs. Here's an estimated long term chart of the American homicide rate: http://2378nh2nfow32gm3mb25krmuyy.wp...Stylized-2.png

It's hitting really historic lows so a lot of costs are down in that random people aren't being killed so much despite other costs going up.

[Kidlicious]

If we didn't have so much military spending we could have McDonalds on every block.

[The Mad Monk]

...instead, McDonald's are disappearing.

[Sava]

...instead, McDonald's are disappearing.

read that today

good

[Dinner]

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becoming-more-peaceful-believe-it-or-not

The world has never been more peaceful.

[Dinner]

...instead, McDonald's are disappearing.

They deserve to disappear. A few months back I went to the newly remodeled McD's in Santee, CA. The decor was relatively nice, wood floors in the dining area, real chairs instead of those old plastic booths but both the food and the service rather sucked. I ordered using one of those electronic kiosks which was annoying because they put a ton of up sell attempts in it, I selected the build your own burger on a lark, then I sat and waited around 5-10 minutes for my food. The Mexican guy behind the counter just shouted my number and dumped it on the counter, there was no table service, nor any other interaction (no thank you for your order, no chit chat, no nothing) while burger itself was not very good at all. The bun was all puffed air and deflated into a tortilla in my hands, their meat was as crappy as always while the tomato was totally flavorless. Even their WiFi was slow.

Here is the thing for their "build your own burger" without too much on it with a large fries and a cook it was almost $11. I can think of numerous places which have better food and serves for much less. If McD's can't get the basics right at a competitive price then maybe they deserve to have fewer outlets.