If war is good for the economy why isn't our economy doing twice as good with two wars?

[NNN0LHI]

I am starting to think war may not be as good for our economy as some people have claimed in the past.

Don

[deaniac21]

1. Depends on the war. WWII brought us out of the depression.

[Winterblues]

13. The depression was already considered over before WW II happened

It was basically public works projects that brought us out of the depression. It was WW II that was what ushered in our Middle Class with GI Bill and Women workers and post war expansion.. The actual war caused us more debt and decay of our infrastructure.

[deaniac21]

14. WRONG. Read Paul Krugman's last column from 2 days ago.

Or a history book.

[dkofos]

15. Krugman is full of shit on that subject.

And you might want to read a history book yourself.

[deaniac21]

16. I was living it, baby.

[Bandit]

18. There are a few of us that were around back then

I think you need to study a little about FDR and the Depression and why FDR was re-elected by such huge numbers in 1936 and again in 1940

[deaniac21]

21. Nothing to do with end of depression.

[Wapsie B]

2. That idea is a remnant of WWII.

That war stimulated the economy. I don't believe the wars after that had anything close to that positive effect.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Ask Germany what happened when they fought two wars n/t

[halobeam]

4. I thought it was because there were so many jobs in manufacturing

the weaponry, leading to needing more administrative work, etc...unlike these days where the big FEW companies took all those jobs. It's just a guess, but that's what I always thought.

[antigone382]

5. ONE war WAS good for our economy--past tense.

WWII was good for the economy because it led to overseas demand (and eventually, our own military demand) for American manufactured goods. And without knowing it for a fact, I'd guess that with a large proportion of adult males (the primary workforce at that time) serving in the military, demand for labor was also much higher--which translates to higher wages and a lower unemployment rate. With far fewer manufacturing jobs based in the United States, and without a draft absorbing large proportions of the workforce, war these days is what war has been for most economies throughout human history: a significant--if not outright tremendous--drain on our resources.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. War is "doubleplusgood" for the economy

I just have a bellyfeel about the whole doublethink concept,
if I didn't I would be accused of a crimethink.

[aquart]

7. Because we no longer make our own war materiel.

We no longer have a steel or tool and die industry. Without them, we can't make things. Our war machines are run with parts made overseas out of our control.

[99th_Monkey]

8. Correction: War is good for DEAD-ENDING an economy. Mission Accomplished. ~nt

[mitchtv]

9. Because they tried something new for the first time

(in History I believe) -run a war and give a tax cut. Generally if you plan a war , you make arrangements to pay for it, usually with taxes

[JJ]

10. Another Republican myth destroyed.

It wasn't the war that helped the economy, it was FDR.
They just didn't want to give him credit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. There was a recession in this country in 1945.

Another in 1948-49.

And again in 1953.

[JHB]

12. WW2 employed and paid lots and lots of average Joes (and Jills)

The soldiers and sailors got paid. War workers got paid. War manufacturing built infrastructure that could be put to civilian use after the war.

These days most of the money goes to the well-padded budgets of contractors, so the money isn't spread as wide and deep as it was then.

[KharmaTrain]

17. This Isn't War...It's Occupation

The real "war" part lasted a few days...ever since it's been a police action...an occupation. Just ask all the "empire builders" like Britain, France, Germany, Japan and the former Soviet Union how "profitable" it was to hold territories by force.

Cheers...

[HamdenRice]

19. The economy was more labor intensive. Robots put together cruise missiles and the like

where as millions of workers were required to produce the materiel of WWII.

Also weapons were less powerful, so we built far more of them -- tens of thousands of bombers, fighters, and transports, whereas today a few dozen planes would be built of a particular model.

War production no longer generates employment; it's a net drain because that same investment used in other industries would generate more employment.

[nickgutierrez]

20. These wars have been great to its profiteers.

Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, etc.

This stuff used to be illegal.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. THAT would be the question of the day. n/t

[SalviaBlue]

23. War Profiteers

[Lumpsum]

24. WW2 did help the US economy. Big time.

It created millions of factory jobs and in turn boosted the stock market.

Why? Technology, or lack thereof, is one reason. Back then, military vehicles, weapons, etc were made by human hand in factories. These days, all military vehicles and weapons are created mostly by automated machines in factories, which does nothing to promote more jobs.

Another reason? Hollywood greatly romanticized the war. Hollywood made something like 2,500 movies during the depression and WW2 which boosted the film industry, and in turn, the economy. Also, there was A LOT of US propaganda inspired a lot of woman to work. Something like 19 million woman were employed in relation to the war effort in 1944 - that many women working during that era was unheard of. This too, boosted the economy.

Today, Hollywood isn't romanticizing the war because there's nothing to romanticize. Nor is there a heavy US propaganda effort to put people, especially women, to work for this war.

So you have a war, two actually, that are sucking billions of dollars from the economy a month with no people putting the money back in with jobs. Coupled with the housing and credit crisis, and you have the economy we all live in today.