To libertarians / Rand clones

[Borodog]

As I said. Meaningless in the absence of a deeper understanding of economics.

Simply draft all the unemployed and there is no unemployment! Brilliant! Are you arguing to reintroduce the draft? Better yet, it would be cheaper to imprison them than to draft them, and our unemployment rate would be just as low.

And again with the GDP. Suppose the government emplyees a fifth of the workforce and buys thousands of intaglio presses upon which our workers are employed printing shiny new dollars day and night, with which they are then paid. What happens to the GDP? What do you think happens to corporate profits in the economy? Is the economy in any sense of the word "robust" ?

Inflation. You embolden 2.3% inflation like it's a good thing? Where are the inflation numbers from 1940 to 1944 I wonder?

Why do you think any of these numbers imply a "robust" economy? And to the extent that the economy was more robust post war than pre-war (which it was), why in the world do you attribute that change to the war, rather than the cessation of many Raw Deal policies, which took place at the same time. The Raw Deal was demonstrably horrible economic policy, it was finally being phased out, and yet you attribute economic growth to . . . the war?

Do you not understand the concept of "pent up demand" for consumer goods that could not be bought because of Roosevelt's war? Post war consumer demand and production will be elevated, but only because supply was artificially constrained during the war. There's no net economic gain because of the war. The idea is patently absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
Simply draft all the unemployed and there is no unemployment!

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman and absurd. All of the unemployed were not drafted. Nor when the war was over did unemployment skyrocket back into the 20's. Rather, the entire nation was put back to work, and in fact there were labor shortages, which means the economy is working at or beyond its full capacity. Not to mention you bring significant subjective judgement rather than objectively evaluating what was good or bad for the economy. Clearly we are analyzing what happened and not what should be done in the future.

[ QUOTE ]
And again with the GDP...

[/ QUOTE ]

More strawman arugment, coupled with your erroneous claim that all the government did was print money to pay for the war.

[ QUOTE ]
Inflation. You embolden 2.3% inflation like it's a good thing? Where are the inflation numbers from 1940 to 1944 I wonder?


[/ 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 ]
Why do you think any of these numbers imply a "robust" economy?

[/ 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 ]
There's no net economic gain because of the war.

[/ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why don't we just turn to a command economy, build tons of bombs and drop them all in the ocean? We could be building tons of tanks and planes, randomly destroying 75% of them, and the economy would boom, right? It's sooooo easy!

[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.

[Borodog]

I've provided you with specific logical explanations for how war spending can ONLY either come from funds that are then not spent elsewhere (broken window fallacy) or from printing money , which cannot increase the wealth of the country and can only redistribute wealth from the populace to, for example, arms manufacturers, while merely displacing production from consumer goods to military "goods." You have not refuted ANY of these points.

So, by what specific mechanisms does war improve the economy? How does a war make a nation wealthier (neglecting spoils, which I presume isn't part of your claim)? No handwaving about numbers before or after the war. I want to know how it works.

Because clearly, if war is so fantastic for the economy, all we need to do is maintain a perpetual state of war, yes?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
So why don't we just turn to a command economy, build tons of bombs and drop them all in the ocean? We could be building tons of tanks and planes, randomly destroying 75% of them, and the economy would boom, right? It's sooooo easy!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

While our economy would certainly be booming (as Tom and Riddick have so carefully explained), this wouldn't produce quite the same satisfaction as killing foreigners. We need honest-to-FDR perpetual warfare. Prosperity through conflict! Growth through destruction!

[ QUOTE ]
So why don't we just turn to a command economy, build tons of bombs and drop them all in the ocean? We could be building tons of tanks and planes, randomly destroying 75% of them, and the economy would boom, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
you bring significant subjective judgement rather than objectively evaluating what was good or bad for the economy. Clearly we are analyzing what happened and not what should be done in the future.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I of course am staying entirely within the context of the Second World War.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly we are analyzing what happened and not what should be done in the future.


[/ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Tanks, bombs, and planes were very worthwile in 1941 when three countries decided to declare war on us.

[ QUOTE ]
Which ones (industries) were created by the war?


[/ QUOTE ]

The computer industry, for one. The airline industry would be another. Was this a serious question?

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Half came from taxes, half came from bonds. How did this comment in any way address inflation which you quoted?

[ QUOTE ]
New and increased technological innovations:

Which ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, are you serious? How about the the microwave, jet engine, radio communication, underwater communication, sonar, radar, ultrasonic waves and electromagnetic wave theory, submarines, improved antibiotics (penicillin), just to name a few off of the top of my head

I seriously have to stop reading your post after I just read that question. I might as well be explaining World War Two to a child.

[ QUOTE ]
So, by what specific mechanisms does war improve the economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep using the word "war" when I keep addressing "World War Two".

I have briefly and accurately explained, using statistics and standard economic indicators, how World War II pulled us out of the Depression and led to sustained economic health and growth. Not "war", but World War II. However, you refuse to accept GDP, GDP per capita, inflation, unemployment, technological efficiency, the growth rate of technological efficiency, national income, gross private investment, and consumption expenditure, as any indication of economic health and growth.

You also imply that the removal of "Raw Deal" policies was what brought us out of the depression, but refuse to elaborate any further.


[ QUOTE ]
while merely displacing production from consumer goods to military "goods." You have not refuted ANY of these points.


[/ QUOTE ]

I shouldn't need to refute it. Any intelligent person can surmise that the abysmal consumer good production during the Depression was displaced by an uncomparably greater amount of (necessary) military production, not an equal amount.