[The Don]

All that needs to really be said is this. If war is so good for the economy, then why don't we just perpetually manufacture bombs and blow them up over the ocean? That way everyone will be employed in bomb factories and there will be a consistently high GDP.

This is stupid because GDP and the unemployment rate are both aggregates. They mean little regarding the actual success of the economy. See pvn's post with the ditch digging analogy.

[ QUOTE ]
2.3% inflation is not only good, its excellent, on top of being vastly better than deflation that we were experiencing prior to the war. Don't have the exact numbers on me but the inflation numbers from 1940 to 1944 I know were below 3.0% each year, and inflation averaged about 3% right to 1970. Bernanke would kill to be able to see inflation average 3% for even the next 10 years. Again this is excellent, contrary to your fallacious claim that our government recklessly printed money and sent our inflation skyrocketing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they passed it on to the taxpayers.

[ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Full employment, new industries, tons of new non-military jobs, new and increased technological innovation, low steady inflation, booming corporations and employee compensation. I can very easily attribute all of this to the war.

Can you very easily attribute all of this to the cessation of New Deal legislature while showing the war had nothing to do with it?


[/ QUOTE ]

1) High employment:

This means nothing unless people are producing something worthwhile. Again, the ditch digging analogy.


2) New industries and non-military jobs:

Which ones were created by the war?


3) Low steady inflation:

Again, the money had to come from somewhere. In this case it was the taxpayers wallets.


4) New and increased technological innovations:

Which ones? Certainly you don't believe that people actually benefit from the development of arms. Other advancements which actually aided consumers may have been created as a corollary, but wouldn't it have been less costly to develop these directly?


5) Booming corporations:

Again, those which produced products (metal, plastics, fuel etc...) which were bought by the government certainly gained. What about all of the other industries?


[ QUOTE ]
All you've done is deny this. Clearly our economy was in vastly better shape both during and after the war as compared to prior, and the onus is on you to prove that the war had no economic implications (or negative implications) and rather that it was solely because of the removal of the New Deal (specify exactly which policies), and that the war and our overnight escape from the depression were merely coincidental.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is the onus on him? It can be logically deduced as to why war is detrimental to the economy. Your aggregates have proved nothing. Again, your knowledge of economics is very limited, you are looking at numbers without actually contemplating their true nature.