quote:

The US went into a serious depression in 1919 as result of WWI. It didn't last as long as The Great Depression which is why no one of a political bent (such as this idiot author) or his readers is even aware of that. Nor are they aware of the serious economic depression in all of Europe after that war.

quote:

The US was substantially out of The Great Depression by early 1937, but a too early tightening of the money supply caused a slight relapse. But even after that the situation by 1939 had recovered to beyond pre-crash 1927.

quote:

Some would argue that five or more years of rationing after the hostilities have ceased would not be the best indication of war being a "boon to the economy."

quote:

So then, war is good for America, screw everybody else, so then war is "good for the economy," as long as we limit that to our own ends.

quote:

The decrease in unemployment in the US at the onset of WWII has to be balanced by the record breaking increase in the national deficit. There's no free lunch here.

quote:

The Vietnam war ultimately resulted in the US having to decline from being preservers of the standard exchange rate. This resulted in us having to eventually raise the interest rate to 16%.

quote:

As others have pointed out early on in the thread, what's good for profits and what's "good for the economy" are not one and the same, unless you are Reagan or Thatcher or Pinochet.

quote:

Looking at what a "boon" war is to an economy at the onset with out looking at the after effects is political sophistry, not to mention plain ignorance. Same short term view as US corporations, what a coincidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


So then, war is good for America, screw everybody else, so then war is "good for the economy," as long as we limit that to our own ends.

Rationing existed in all of Europe after the war.

The decrease in unemployment in the US at the onset of WWII has to be balanced by the record breaking increase in the national deficit. There's no free lunch here.

The Vietnam war ultimately resulted in the US having to decline from being preservers of the standard exchange rate. This resulted in us having to eventually raise the interest rate to 16%.

Look it up.

Looking at what a "boon" war is to an economy at the onset with out looking at the after effects is political sophistry, not to mention plain ignorance. Same short term view as US corporations, what a coincidence.

Deregulation was looked upon likewise, and we are dealing with the consequences of that now and for years to come.

PS

As others have pointed out early on in the thread, what's good for profits and what's "good for the economy" are not one and the same, unless you are Reagan or Thatcher or Pinochet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So then, war is good for America, screw everybody else, so then war is "good for the economy," as long as we limit that to our own ends.

I repeat: I take the article as written as tongue in cheek. You take it too seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

The article was a satire of those who think war stimulates the economy.

If you read page 2 you will find it is not a satire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Nahhhh. West Germany was the first to abandon the Brenton Woods arrangement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Nahhhh. West Germany was the first to abandon the Brenton Woods arrangement.

Do tell.

That's Bretton, not Brenton, but go ahead anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So then, war is good for America, screw everybody else, so then war is "good for the economy," as long as we limit that to our own ends.

I repeat: I take the article as written as tongue in cheek. You take it too seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

The article was a satire of those who think war stimulates the economy.

If you read page 2 you will find it is not a satire.

Thanks for that clarification.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

America needs a new war? For the economy to survive? Job market to revive? Capitalism thrive? Maybe. Here’s why:

Forbes reported that GDP data “fell for the first time in three and a half years in the fourth quarter ... declining by an annualized 0.1%” while “economists had expected GDP to increase 1%. A dramatic 15% drop in government spending dragged on economic activity. Defense outlays were cut the most, falling by 22.2%, the largest decrease in defense since the Vietnam War’s end in 1972.”

Wars stimulate the economy and we are a warrior nation: Didn’t WWII get us out of the Great Depression? And the Iraq/Afghan Wars, longest in history, sure stimulated the economy ... the Pentagon war machine doubled from $260 billion in 2000 to roughly $550 billion last year ... GDP increased 50% from $10 trillion to $15 trillion ... and federal debt tripled to over $15 trillion from under $5 trillion back when our leaders believed “debt didn’t matter.”

However, with the Afghan and Iraq Wars winding down, capitalism needs an economic stimulus: a new war. It’s so American: Neocons believe a new war would boost GDP. They must be praying North Korea’s Lil’ Kim will do something impulsive. Give us an excuse.

Yet Washington politicians are conflicted. Some want to shrink government, cut debt and are cheering the “dramatic 15% drop in government spending.” On the other hand, the “largest decrease in defense since the Vietnam War’s end in 1972” is unnerving neocons, warhawks and politicians heavily dependent on defense contractors, lobbyists and voters at military bases in their districts.

So what’s next? If American capitalism needs a new war to survive ... if we’re slowing down the Afghan and Iraq war theaters ... if North Korea’s just saber-rattling ... if China has too much to lose ... if new wars are fought by drones from video screens in one of the Pentagon’s 70 drone bases ... but if all the military-industrial complex capitalists who get rich off wars are still itching to attack ... then who will trigger a new war for America’s “disaster capitalists?”

[Your thoughts???]

quote:

1. WWII DID stimulate the economy, through deficit spending. There's a reason that both Reagan and Cheney espoused that deficits don't matter - it's the only way to justify defense spending increases. In today's deficit-cutting climate, any deficit spending for a war that did not involve a direct hit on the US is a political nonstarter.

quote:

2. The argument that war is good for the economy, is dead. It was true for WWII and maybe the Vietnam war, and Vietnam War vets' return inflated unemployment. But obviously, the Iraq and Afghani wars coincided over a flatlining economy.

quote:

3. If we were to start another war, the major beneficiaries would be the C level execs of defense companies and India, because the defense firms would subcontract out most of the engineering and IT work. That would exacerbate the "class warfare" within this country a lot.

quote:

4. Beating the war drums would further divide the GOP, between deficit hawks and war-crazy neocons. The GOP's poor health is bad for the country. We need two viable parties, hopefully more some day.

quote:

5. Beating up another country and killing citizens of both, so we can afford bigger houses, is one of the most immoral things I've ever read, even if it WOULD work.