You did state rather unequivocally that WWII fixed the economy: > It didn't suffer through it at all, it got fixed by it. And now, you're attempting to declar

You did state rather unequivocally that WWII fixed the economy: > It didn't suffer through it at all, it got fixed by it. And now, you're attempting to declare post hoc, ergo propter hoc? The whole point of what I'm saying is that there are thousands or millions of changes in policy, technology, demographics, sentiment, which had an impact on the economy, we don't know which did what. I could just as easily explain the post-war years by saying that it's natural that any country which does not get bombed to smithereens will experience relative prosperity, whether or not it participated in bombing other countries, as we did in WWII. Perhaps it was only that advantage which overwhelmed the tax of war spending. Again, I can't say for sure, but neither can you. I'm inclined to think you're wrong though, from the simple perspective the the allocation of resources over time.