The Price of Conflict

[Kidlicious]

...instead, McDonald's are disappearing.

Obama

[Kidlicious]

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.

YOU GOT TROLLED!

[Dauphin]

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.

An easier comparison is military deaths per capita. English Civil War being more bloody than WW1. It may also give a better reflection of societal impact, even if not the economic.

[C0ckney]

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.

yes that's true, society is becoming less violent. however, there were also no police and no intelligence apparatus (though spies were legion in mediaeval wars). but yes, i think that the costs from violent crime, including piracy and banditry, are lower now.

[C0ckney]

An easier comparison is military deaths per capita. English Civil War being more bloody than WW1. It may also give a better reflection of societal impact, even if not the economic.

i think that's true, but it's a rather different question. i think in general that the total amount of economic activity devoted to war has gone down, but when it peaks, it can be far higher. the UK spent more than 50% of its GDP on the military in world war 2; it's impossible to imagine that happening in earlier times.

[Dauphin]

Post Napoleonic war debts were greater than post WW2, as percentage of GDP. Not sure how they may relate to military spending as a percentage, but probably a good proxy. France and Spain also defaulted on debts several times after massive military campaigns in or around the 17th century. Most taxes raised in the pre-industrial era were for military upkeep.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but Without better stats, I would not yet make the claim that it couldn't peak to modern equivalent amounts of over 50% of economic output.

[C0ckney]

no the spending was much higher in ww2; the maximum pre-ww1 is something like 20%. i'll try and find some proof.

edit: ah here we go

[Dauphin]

I said debt, not spending. But that is a better figure. Also, it is says it wasless than 50%, FWIW.

[Sep Blatter]

There is too much conflict in the world, that is why I should be FIFA President for life.

[Dauphin]

There is too much conflict in the world, that is why I should be FIFA President for life.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/sepp-blatter/11677157/Sepp-Blatter-suffers-further-blow-as-Nobel-Peace-Prize-terminate-relationship-with-Fifa.html

Sepp Blatter suffers further blow as Nobel Peace Prize terminate relationship with Fifa
No sooner had Sepp Blatter confirmed he was leaving than the Nobel Peace Centre said it was stopping co-operation with Fifa 'as soon as circumstances allow'

Goshdarnett. The fools!

[C0ckney]

I said debt, not spending. But that is a better figure. Also, it is says it wasless than 50%, FWIW.

yes, i must have misremembered the figure.