Money and War

by

5

A connection I have made between Roxanna and Emma, is that the time period in which both novels were written coincide with distinct periods of war. To this day war seems to have a profound effect on the economy, and more specifically the ability to save a nation from economic doom, or send it into depression. The beginning of World War II marked a dramatic change in the American work force. Women were entering into predominantly male positions as a many American males were drafted and sent off to war. Comparing times in which unemployment rates in America peaked to the start and end of the WWII, a very clear negative correlation can be seen. Times of war are marked with a decrease in the unemployment rates, while peace times seem to spark a sharp spike. More recently the DotCom crash of 2000 – 2002, and the beginning of the war in Afghanistan in 2001 are also closely matched, with war being the solution to an economic down turn.

Connecting this pattern to Roxanna and Emma, and the various historical events that took place during the period in which they were written, the discourse surrounding the economy is not entirely immune from the perils of war. Miles very deliberately drew attention to this by highlighting the time period in which Jane Austen both began and completed the novel Emma. Times of war seem to question the stability of currency and shake the trust people have in the economy, and standards of currency as well.

 

I am curious if anyone else has anything to offer on the idea of war, money, and the world economy?

5 thoughts on “Money and War”

  1. Hi Phillip!
    You begin draw an interesting comparison between war, money, and the two novels we’ve studied in class. If I were to draw an overarching conclusion about these three ideas, it would be that the novels and their settings reflect the larger social and economic conditions of their day: that ‘day’ (as you’ve pointed out) is one unsettled by the underlying threat of war.
    A period of war is cause for much instability in the country and among its people. That feeling of instability during a time of conflict manifests through all of society’s activities: politics, economics, religion…etc. The uncertainty that overburdens a nation at war seeps into the realm of economics, as demonstrated in Defoe and Austen’s novels.

    Trust is such an important concept for a nation at war. One must have trust in the Monarchy, the nation, the army. One cannot trust the rival. We have to have faith that our soldiers will fight heroically, sacrificing themselves if need be. But what happens if a war is lost? What will that mean for the nation? All these questions cannot be answered until the war is over.
    Britain, being in a perpetual state of war during this period, is therefore in a perpetual state of insecurity. Trust becomes something very difficult to rely on when everything is floating up in the air. With national ‘confidence’ (a word Horner mentions in his article as being the driving force of credit) deteriorating due to the uncertainty of war, so do other sectors of society as well: namely, economics because it is a system largely based on something as arbitrary as trust. I guess, following Horner’s terms, a nation at war is a nation plagued by ’embarrassment’, and social discomfort. It can only be resolved by the re-establishment of confidence, which can only occur when war is over and trust is reinstated.
    Does that make sense?

    • Thank you for your response Bronwyn!

      I also like your use of the word ‘confidence’. The term is commonly used within economic discourse, and I feel it is a rather illusive term which can also be used to describe one of Roxana’s personas – Amy.

      Cheers,

      Phillip L

  2. Hi Browyn,

    I like your ideas how war leads to instability and suspicions about trust. It was helpful to bring in Horner’s perspective to shed light on this.

    Phillip- Although you are not alone in seeing “war [as] a solution to economic downturn,” I propose that this is more often not the case.

    In order for an economy to benefit from war–in terms of economics and employment–the country has to begin from a place of economic health (or at least stability).

    If a country is already in debt, war will only exacerbate the situation. For example, in the case of Ukraine, the current level of debt and the volatile socio-political climate discourage outside investors or potential trade. When a country is in debt, there is only so much that can be done without appealing to outside markets for help. War will only increase the strain on the economy and increase the country’s debt. (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21651844-ukraines-government-making-some-progress-much-more-needs-be)

    Despite this, war can still give the *illusion* of economic healthy depending on what measures are used.

    The most common way, it would seem, is to analyze unemployment rates (and GDP, but I will focus on unemployment rates).

    Just because an industry increases employment, does not mean it will benefit the economy. And just because an industry fails to foster job creation does not mean that it is bad for the economy. I would argue that economists communicate a false dichotomy. Just because an industry (in this case the war effort) offers job opportunities doesn’t mean that it will have a net benefit for the economy in the long run.

    Short-term job creation can bolster numbers and increase public opinion; however, it does not necessarily signify long-term economic health.

    We saw examples of this from the Canadian government during the federal election last year where a report claimed
    that the government had created 54,000 full-time jobs; however, what they didn’t mention was that there was a concurrent loss of 42,400 part-time jobs meaning that there was only a net gain of 12,000 new jobs.

    Framing information in this way lead to an initial “national credit”, but when media broke the story, the illusion was broken and national credit fell far lower than where it had started.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-job-numbers-1.3215957

    I hope this all makes sense… Any thoughts?

Leave a Reply