4 ms·

> we had to participate in a World War to get out of it I'm not sure that "participation in a World War" was what got us out of it, nor is that an admissible t

> we had to participate in a World War to get out of it I'm not sure that "participation in a World War" was what got us out of it, nor is that an admissible tool to correct a recession. WWII did kick-start a lot of valuable developments, and it allowed the government to write a lot of checks and take out a lot of loans to inject money into industry, I'll grant. But I'm curious what you think would have happened had the Nazis not come to power in Germany, and Japan not taken Manchuria.

FussyZeus 9y ago
It's a booster shot of capital first into industry and agriculture, then into the hands of the wives of soldiers, then into the soldier's themselves when they got back. It's not a great tool at all, I'm not saying it's a good thing, the fact that a war is fantastic for the economy is common knowledge, or at least I thought. It's a shitload of Government spending that's directed from all sides of the political spectrum (mostly) and often isn't questioned at the time, so you get the capital shot without the hangover of the political divide like we have now. Things are objectively easier when your enemy is as well defined and totally evil as the Nazi's.
- Quenty 9y ago
  That being said, War is really bad for quality of life. Every tank, missile, bullet, could be used to improve a consumer’s life instead. And every life lost, building destroyed, et cet is potential economic assets. Economics that are good on paper isn’t really the end goal.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    I don't disagree, but you asked me how the war got us out. That's how it did.
  - chii 9y ago
    > Every tank, missile, bullet, could be used to improve a consumer’s life instead but just because no war happesn doesn't mean that the consumer's life gets improved. THe bullet money would've been spent elsewhere similarly to a war, to benefit the few rich.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  the fact that a war is fantastic for the economy is common knowledge, or at least I thought What?! This is absurd! Common sense should tell you that war is terrible for an economy because lots of valuable assets get destroyed repeatedly. What you mean is that war is good for GDP because suddenly every last scrap of spare resource is thrown into industrial production, often funded by running up massive debts. But don't make the mistake of confusing the economy for GDP. From a wealth perspective war is about as useful as paying people to dig holes in the ground and immediately fill them back up again. Yes, it pumps your stats around "production" (of holes), but it doesn't create wealth.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Mostly true, except that war does drive scientific and technological advancement, as well as investments in production capacity and resource extraction (basically it is an extreme form of competition that forces you to progress or die).
- s_kilk 9y ago
  > the fact that a war is fantastic for the economy is common knowledge It's pub philosophy, usually based on a very thin understanding of the economic and political conditions of the early 20th century. Unfortunately a lot of people have generalised this 'wisdom' into a broad "what we really need is a good war", as if that war wouldn't devastate pretty much all of the advanced capitalist economies.
alphaalpha101 9y ago
The recovery from the great depression would have been like the USA's still ongoing recovery from the 2008 recession: slow, very arduous, and likely to take more like 20 years than 8.
everyone 9y ago
World War one and two were some of the only events ever in history the reduce wealth inequality, which otherwise has grown inexorably. I gathered this from reading 'Capital in the 21st century' by Thomas Piketty
- pnutjam 9y ago
  Don't forget the Black Death.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    And the fall of the Roman empire.
    - mathiasben 9y ago
      And the internal revenue act of 1954.
ataturk 9y ago
It's funny that the people who tout WWII as the US's recovery gloss over the fact that "war socialism" was put into play and that people suffered rationing and a near command economy in the US during the war years. Company profits were limited, etc. I'm not a fan of any of those things, mind you, I just find it fascinating that destruction leads to those kinds of outcomes and not only that, but many people look back fondly on those times of absolute hardship. My parents were kids during WWII and they have mentioned all kinds of stories about collecting newspapers and metal and so on. They all wax nostalgic about a time when 50 million people were killed. Makes no sense. Nothing in the human condition, when dissected, makes any sense though.

FussyZeus 9y ago

It's a booster shot of capital first into industry and agriculture, then into the hands of the wives of soldiers, then into the soldier's themselves when they got back. It's not a great tool at all, I'm not saying it's a good thing, the fact that a war is fantastic for the economy is common knowledge, or at least I thought. It's a shitload of Government spending that's directed from all sides of the political spectrum (mostly) and often isn't questioned at the time, so you get the capital shot without the hangover of the political divide like we have now. Things are objectively easier when your enemy is as well defined and totally evil as the Nazi's.

Quenty 9y ago
That being said, War is really bad for quality of life. Every tank, missile, bullet, could be used to improve a consumer’s life instead. And every life lost, building destroyed, et cet is potential economic assets. Economics that are good on paper isn’t really the end goal.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  I don't disagree, but you asked me how the war got us out. That's how it did.
- chii 9y ago
  > Every tank, missile, bullet, could be used to improve a consumer’s life instead but just because no war happesn doesn't mean that the consumer's life gets improved. THe bullet money would've been spent elsewhere similarly to a war, to benefit the few rich.
peoplewindow 9y ago
the fact that a war is fantastic for the economy is common knowledge, or at least I thought What?! This is absurd! Common sense should tell you that war is terrible for an economy because lots of valuable assets get destroyed repeatedly. What you mean is that war is good for GDP because suddenly every last scrap of spare resource is thrown into industrial production, often funded by running up massive debts. But don't make the mistake of confusing the economy for GDP. From a wealth perspective war is about as useful as paying people to dig holes in the ground and immediately fill them back up again. Yes, it pumps your stats around "production" (of holes), but it doesn't create wealth.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Mostly true, except that war does drive scientific and technological advancement, as well as investments in production capacity and resource extraction (basically it is an extreme form of competition that forces you to progress or die).
s_kilk 9y ago
> the fact that a war is fantastic for the economy is common knowledge It's pub philosophy, usually based on a very thin understanding of the economic and political conditions of the early 20th century. Unfortunately a lot of people have generalised this 'wisdom' into a broad "what we really need is a good war", as if that war wouldn't devastate pretty much all of the advanced capitalist economies.

alphaalpha101 9y ago

The recovery from the great depression would have been like the USA's still ongoing recovery from the 2008 recession: slow, very arduous, and likely to take more like 20 years than 8.

everyone 9y ago

World War one and two were some of the only events ever in history the reduce wealth inequality, which otherwise has grown inexorably. I gathered this from reading 'Capital in the 21st century' by Thomas Piketty

pnutjam 9y ago
Don't forget the Black Death.
- njarboe 9y ago
  And the fall of the Roman empire.
  - mathiasben 9y ago
    And the internal revenue act of 1954.

ataturk 9y ago

It's funny that the people who tout WWII as the US's recovery gloss over the fact that "war socialism" was put into play and that people suffered rationing and a near command economy in the US during the war years. Company profits were limited, etc. I'm not a fan of any of those things, mind you, I just find it fascinating that destruction leads to those kinds of outcomes and not only that, but many people look back fondly on those times of absolute hardship. My parents were kids during WWII and they have mentioned all kinds of stories about collecting newspapers and metal and so on. They all wax nostalgic about a time when 50 million people were killed. Makes no sense. Nothing in the human condition, when dissected, makes any sense though.