Proof: War is Bad for the Economy

[LaRondo]

War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times.
The second world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth. Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon.

Today, we know that this is nonsense.
The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy.
Joseph Stiglitz, 2003

read more:
Debunking the Myth that War Is Good for the Economy Once and For All

[tbomachines]

What an incredibly stupid argument either way. "war is good" or "war is bad"....really?

Never mind that its comparing two VASTLY different wars during different financial times, with different economic strengths.

[SwampYankee]

Originally Posted by tbomachines

What an incredibly stupid argument either way. "war is good" or "war is bad"....really?

Never mind that its comparing two VASTLY different wars during different financial times, with different economic strengths.

Killjoy.

[LaRondo]

Originally Posted by tbomachines

What an incredibly stupid argument either way. "war is good" or "war is bad"....really?

Never mind that its comparing two VASTLY different wars during different financial times, with different economic strengths.

Sounds like a reasonable point.
What remains is the overall aspect of "perpetual", aka 'ongoing' that makes the equation here.

I don't think it's a stupid argument, not with respect to economy.

[tbomachines]

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Sounds like a reasonable point.
What remains is the overall aspect of "perpetual", aka 'ongoing' that makes the equation here.

I don't think it's a stupid argument, not with respect to economy.

I do, because wars change and economies change. Each case needs to be looked at individually instead of just "war...good or bad through the ages?" Look at the amount of domestic manufacturing we had back in WWII, obviously it would lend itself well to the frenetic pace of war. We don't have nearly as much anymore, much of that is offshore in countries that don't have any interest in the war except whether or not we keep buying their stuff. Also due to the global nature of business nowadays, one state in a war with another state hardly affects the flow of money on a global scale, unless something like WWII were to occur, in terms of scale. Wars can be good, wars can be bad for the economy. Depends whose side you're on and which wars/economies you are talking about.

[Dudesky]

Working in the mill during Nam, economy was quite up and running.

[pj67coll]

WWII was wonderful for the US economy. In fact America never had it so good. The effects that lasted for decades. The "boom" of the 90's however was a completely different thing which as it turned out was not, in fact, particularly good for the US. If I were to be a cynic I might suggest we need another proper war like WWII. But then I'm not a cynic so I'll refrain...

Utterly different circumstances in history such as to make comparisons meaningless.

- Peter.

[MS Fowler]

War only benefits a country if it can destroy the industrial power of its adversaries on a world stage as Peter pointed out, above.
The problem was that for a generation or two, Americans thought (hoped) that the post WW2 world economy was "the way things were meant to be" forever. However, the evil conqueror ( as we are often represented to be), instead of subjugating our enemies, rebuilt them and their economies to the point that they had the better and more efficient means of production while ours rusted. It might make for an interesting topic to discuss how things might look today if the US had treated our enemies differently with a Versailles-like treaty after WW2--make it another thread.
Economies are incredibly complex. To pick out any one or two factors and pronounce them as the "key" must be done with great care. We, as a people, are too simplistic to look at too many factors. One or two variables is about the limit.

[panZZer]

Originally Posted by LaRondo

War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times.
The second world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth. Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon.

Today, we know that this is nonsense.
The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy.
Joseph Stiglitz, 2003

read more:
Debunking the Myth that War Is Good for the Economy Once and For All

sonofabeach---WhaT WaS Your first clue??? --Ever seen a Repub that would actually pay for ANY WAR?

[LaRondo]

Good points. I still get the feeling, it doesn't reflect the essence of the presentation.
It's about the 'myth', "war is good for the economy".

For the longest time, the American mindset still dwells on this metaphor.
Respectively, we tend to be 'ok' with the actual consequences of ongoing war activity on our economy or at best, are unclear about it, because of the myth still echoing in us.

I agree, time periods in view of wars during the past 100 years are not an ideal schematic for comparison.

Point in view:
"War on Terror". 10+ years. Still going. Does it benefit our society economically?

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Good points. I still get the feeling, it doesn't reflect the essence of the presentation.
It's about the 'myth', "war is good for the economy".

For the longest time, the American mindset still dwells on this metaphor.
Respectively, we tend to be 'ok' with the actual consequences of ongoing war activity on our economy or at best, are unclear about it, because of the myth still echoing in us.

I agree, time periods in view of wars during the past 100 years are not an ideal schematic for comparison.

Point in view:
"War on Terror". 10+ years. Still going. Does it benefit our society economically?

War on Drugs
War on Poverty

Does either benefit society, or the individuals supposed the target?

[elchivito]

The War on Christmas. There's an economic downer if ever there was one.

[TwitchKitty]

If you wish for a war like WWII and you live in the US you truly have your head in the sand or have a national death wish.

War is good for those who finance war, that is all.

[panZZer]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

War on Drugs
War on Poverty

Does either benefit society, or the individuals supposed the target?

two differnet programs for either side--And you are crossing where your flock forbid you you to do on -the war on drugs, A good conservative doesn't go aroud acknowleging that tough on crime isn't working.

[jplinville]

The first Gulf War was particularly kind to the family business. We bid on a contract for Raytheon to build a series of dies to stamp out missile fins for the Patriot missile. The contract was a two fold contract...one to build the tooling, and another to run production on the parts. We bid $1 to build the tooling, and $95 per finished part, with production runs of 35,000 parts per run. It turned out very lucrative for the family business...our first and only multi-million dollar year.

In the long run, it did more harm than good for the business...having a government contract in your shop means that any and all activity on other contracts take a back seat to Uncle Sam. We lost business with companies that we had nurtured for a number of years because of it.

If I could go back and do it again, without dad's input, I'd have created a second company to handle government contracts only so the main customers wouldn't be affected.

Dad owned a couple different companies over the course of his lifetime. I learned a whole lot of what not to do by learning from him.