Another submission by Jaroslav Kudritski, our first 2-time contributor. Many thanks to him. Hope you all enjoy this enticing read.

When flipping through the history books of history patterns eventually begin to emerge. It is undeniable that the world runs on cycles and obviously, the economy is no different. Alone, these are just statistics but when these various cycles are put together with a timeline, some very interesting information arises. For example, the highest periods of prosperity usually coincide with the end of a war. That is not surprising since war production creates a massive need for industrial output. For that, workers are needed and that leads to increased spending. Just as war drives industry, spenders drive the economy. While a full-scale worldwide war cannot be considered as a solution to the current economic downturn, what else can be done?

Although war is the traditional answer to this kind of problem, the progression of how wars are fought has changed drastically over the years, especially in America. Many undesirable traits of war have been removed. After the Civil War, there have been no wars fought on US soil. The cold war ended up effectively outsourcing wars to small far away nations. So what is the next logical step in this progression? Some claim the next step has already been taken. The war against terror is this century’s version of traditional wars. Although I am no fan of terrorism, economically it is not a very viable crisis, as the enemy does not exist to the naked eye. Hunting terrorists does not require thousands of tanks or millions of bullets or seven aircraft carriers. Prevention is really the only answer. Even though prevention employs many workers it does not promote the build up of a manufacturing sector that the second world war created in America. In order to look for a solution one must take a step backwards and ask what characteristic of war or a crisis promotes the successful development of industry?

The easy answer is the crisis needs to be something big, a problem that would be so difficult to solve that it would need to employ a good chunk of the nation. As we’ve learned from current engagements in the Middle East, the enemy must be visible and create a formidable opposition. Some may be surprised to hear that this kind of crisis already exists and it is two-fold. First, it includes the depletion of natural resources. Second is the more serious issue of climate change. Although gas prices have fallen drastically recently, this does not mean there is more oil in the ground. It actually enables us to use more than ever and eventually, it will run out. This will create a huge problem as the petroleum industry not only is one of our main sources of energy but it supplies drugs manufacturers. Most importantly it is essential in the current methods of production of plastics. Developing solutions to these enormous problems would take a huge amount of man power.

The issue of climate change, is a totally different animal. Its effects have not been proven and the sheer size of our planet greatly limits our understanding of it. I like to refer to it as the crisis that may not exist. Some may take offense to this and I apologize. However, I presume it is much less risky to try and fix a problem that may not exist. If we fail then no harm will be done. Additionally, it would create a great amount of amount of jobs. The sheer power of renewable energy makes it extremely difficult to harvest but the fast pace of technological progression means every few years we have much more efficient means of production. This would also create the technologies that would replace cars as the main export of the United States. History dictates that a crisis needs to happen and it will be the people’s choice of how much they have to suffer before the eventual rise to prosperity. An actual war or a problem which may not exist? It’s our choice.