[ QUOTE ]
‘Worthwhile’ was a bad word. I should have said ‘leads to prosperity’ or something of that nature.


[/ QUOTE ]

All goods in an economy don't need to "lead to prosperity", they simply need to be final goods which are consumed or inventoried. The ditch digging analogy has no relevance to military goods because a ditch is not a good and therefore isnt counted in production like military goods.


[ QUOTE ]
The other way they did this (as you stated) was through bonds. How do you suppose the government pays back this loaned money? This is done by passing it on to future taxpayers, or by printing new money. Both are bad.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Corporations issue bonds, and they have to pay them back later. Are bonds bad for corporations?

[ QUOTE ]
Any such innovations which were developed during war time would have been developed outside of war time

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. The developments I outlined were demanded by military commanders, not civilian consumers. Civilian applications only came about after the previously unnecessary R+D had been done in war time urgency.

[ QUOTE ]
You have still failed to address the simple fact that it can be logically deduced as to why war is bad for the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that wars are generally bad for an economy. The 1939 economy was not a normally functioning economy.

[ QUOTE ]
You keep relying on aggregates to make your point. Numbers mean nothing if you don't interpret them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I interpret labor, technology, and capital to be inputs that lead to economic output. All three terms are described in the aggregate. And in an depression era when all three come together to produce very little, and suddenly, almost overnight, all three come together to produce a lot, oh nevermind it was just America naturally going through the business cycle, had nothing to do with any war.