Fake an Alien Invasion, Save the U.S. Economy

[winter2]

For some reason I was reading this while hearing "the duck song" in my head.

 

[Agayek]

Even better, all we need to do is replay the 1930's War of the Worlds radio broadcast throughout the entire US. Problem solved.

 

[BabyRaptor]

Wait, wait, wait...Watchmen, anyone?

Also, invade Canada!

Invade Canada? To take what exactly? Our.... jobs? Not sure how it would help....

Nah, wasn't being serious. It was just fun to say.

 

[The Youth Counselor]

"There was a Twilight Zone episode like this, in which scientists faked an alien threat in order to achieve world peace," he said. "Well this time we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus."

No, you're thinking of the Outer Limits. The episode was called Architects of Fear, one of the classics.

 

[ExtraDebit]

You want a good economy? Try global birth control. There're just too many people in the world and too few resources.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

He has read the book, hasn't he?

That's not bean juice there...

..Twilight Zone? As everyone else has noted; Try Watchmen.

TBF, Twilight Zone did it when Alan Moore was still trying to grow a beard. And War of the Worlds did it when he was just a spermatozoa. (There's a mental image for you)

You can jump back as far as 1874 if you want to be really pedantic. There was a newspaper article about wild animals invading.

Thing is though, you still get results as above. People panicking don't act too rationally.

In fact, that was the point of The Monsters are due on Maple Street (TZ 1:22) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street] which I think he's referring to. It was also redone in 2003 about Terrorism.

Hmmm...
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat had a fallout all of it's own for the children...
And the childre yet unborn.
And the pity of it is ...
that these things cannot be confined to ...
The Twilight Zone.

 

[oktalist]

Haven't they already done this with the war against terror? That delayed the inevitable collapse by a few years I'd venture.

EDIT:

You want a good economy? Try global birth control. There're just too many people in the world and too few resources.

There's enough food in the world to feed everyone. It's just not profitable to do so.

 

[duchaked]

well if there's anything to be learned from video games, we do have a few PMCs nearby...

 

[duchaked]

Meanwhile WWI broke every european economy and reduced them from superpowers to rubble.

lol they were talking about WWII, but yea I get what you were saying there

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

I expected the Onion, though I've got an even better idea. How about the U.S. stops bombing brown people?

Meanwhile WWI broke every european economy and reduced them from superpowers to rubble.

And WWII remade them. your point?

 

[Redratson]

Thats so sily that it just might work

 

[Thedayrecker]

Didn't even read the article, but I like it already.

 

[TheDooD]

Kill a lot of civilians, blow up some shit, soldiers become "heroes", and the WHOLE fucking world still knows it was fake. Great way to "save" the Economy, smart move.

 

[SyphonX]

What he's really saying, and it's not funny at all, is that the US needs another war to save the economy. Herp derp, I'll make light of my point by joking about aliens, derp.

They will either take us to war, or let the economy crash. Hopefully the economy doesn't actually "crash", because if it does, expect to see everyone getting ripped up into a patriotic fervor over one country or another.

These people know nothing. They only know how to exploit and destroy.

I'm not amused.

Eat a dick Krugman.

 

[Elementlmage]

Yeah, because the two wars we were just in were SOOOO good for our economy. Wait no, that's why we just about had to default the other day... Shut up, Keynesians.

Nice analogical argument....


The differences between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and WW2 is so striking even a the grader is capable of pointing them, not the least of which is scale. The fact that you blatantly ignore this is proof that you are unwilling to listen to reason so I should just hold my breath here shouldn't I? TOO LATE!


You see, with the I and A wars, we used equipment and soldiers from a peace time stockpile and haven't really had to up-arm or re-arm our soldiers. We have done just fine on using the equipment we already had, hence, none was purchased. We are mostly using ordnance, fuel, salaries.

The bulk of the ammunition we use actually comes from France. I know right? We by almost all out our small arms ammo from Fabrique National. As such, none of that money gets put into the American Economy and can chalked up to trade deficit.

Fuel, well we all know where that comes from, so no explanation needed....trade deficit.

And well, the salaries of soldiers don't really add up to a whole lot... probably less than 1/5th of our military expenditures.

You see, the reason why WW2 bolstered our economy so much was because of a MASSIVE increase in arms procurement that, for over 6 years, completely "maxed out" our available industrial capacity and, once the draft began, created a huge labor shortage, essentially putting everyone back to work and greatly increasing GDP/c(Gross Domestic Product per Capita, this a measurement of mean income, not raw production and is far more accurate at predicting economic conditions the GDP). Because this production cycle and labor shortage lasted so long, and because of the resulting shortages of consumer goods, people built up vast amounts of savings which propped up the economy post-war until the economy could be converted back to being consumer driven, instead of being militaristically driven, preventing a crash. I other words, it maintained spending at a level as such to prevent an economic contraction.

THAT is the problem we are having kick starting the economy. The scale of our efforts has not been nearly great enough to cause a long lasting effect! And, as a result, every time we cut of the stimulus money(however poorly it was allocated[you can't just throw money at the economy and expect it to do something]), GDP/c contracts to it's earlier levels as we have failed to create a infrastructure capable of maintaining the increased spending. THAT is why Mr. Krugman's idea is a good one. However hard it is to pull of, we need something to scare the bejezus out of everyone to get us working towards a common...very expensive goal.

 

[Butterjaw]

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[cymonsgames]

Yawl all are too young to remember by Regan used to say the same thing. In fact he touted it as the only way to bring about world peace, if we all felt a common threat from outside the earth. A little loony? Maybe. New? Not really. Would it work? It just might.

 

[Vortigar]

To anyone saying the US should invade Canada:
Canada is part of the British Kingdom. You'd be directly declaring war to your best ally. And NATO as a whole. Europe vs US is not going to be pretty. End result: Russia and China win.

It's true that great works were achieved during the greatest economic downfalls. When people start working for very little money the next generation reaps the rewards. It sounds mad but there's a core of truth there. Things like the Hoover Dam or our Afsluitdijk could only be created because there were enough desperate people at the time.

See also: elementImage above.

 

[The Lugz]

i think we should develop the surface to asteroid defence cannon, and use it to nudge the rocks that come near earth away from the planet's orbit

surely that's a justifiable use of manpower if people are sat on their ass doing nothing ?
i mean, eventually it's going to be needed so why not make use of the time we have now?

 

[Kragg]

Yeah, because the two wars we were just in were SOOOO good for our economy. Wait no, that's why we just about had to default the other day... Shut up, Keynesians.

Nice analogical argument....


The differences between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and WW2 is so striking even a the grader is capable of pointing them, not the least of which is scale. The fact that you blatantly ignore this is proof that you are unwilling to listen to reason so I should just hold my breath here shouldn't I? TOO LATE!


You see, with the I and A wars, we used equipment and soldiers from a peace time stockpile and haven't really had to up-arm or re-arm our soldiers. We have done just fine on using the equipment we already had, hence, none was purchased. We are mostly using ordnance, fuel, salaries.

The bulk of the ammunition we use actually comes from France. I know right? We by almost all out our small arms ammo from Fabrique National. As such, none of that money gets put into the American Economy and can chalked up to trade deficit.

Fuel, well we all know where that comes from, so no explanation needed....trade deficit.

And well, the salaries of soldiers don't really add up to a whole lot... probably less than 1/5th of our military expenditures.

You see, the reason why WW2 bolstered our economy so much was because of a MASSIVE increase in arms procurement that, for over 6 years, completely "maxed out" our available industrial capacity and, once the draft began, created a huge labor shortage, essentially putting everyone back to work and greatly increasing GDP/c(Gross Domestic Product per Capita, this a measurement of mean income, not raw production and is far more accurate at predicting economic conditions the GDP). Because this production cycle and labor shortage lasted so long, and because of the resulting shortages of consumer goods, people built up vast amounts of savings which propped up the economy post-war until the economy could be converted back to being consumer driven, instead of being militaristically driven, preventing a crash. I other words, it maintained spending at a level as such to prevent an economic contraction.

THAT is the problem we are having kick starting the economy. The scale of our efforts has not been nearly great enough to cause a long lasting effect! And, as a result, every time we cut of the stimulus money(however poorly it was allocated[you can't just throw money at the economy and expect it to do something]), GDP/c contracts to it's earlier levels as we have failed to create a infrastructure capable of maintaining the increased spending. THAT is why Mr. Krugman's idea is a good one. However hard it is to pull of, we need something to scare the bejezus out of everyone to get us working towards a common...very expensive goal.

not to mention scientific advances

what people need to see is that the actual war part is secondary, change of workethic and streamlined decisionmaking is whats needed in the world in general. people shooting down other peoples ideas just because they are in a diff political party will end when something huge happens