Maybe they need a trillion

In one of those posts I kick myself for not having thought of first, Tim Swanson asks Isn’t war good for the economy? Indeed, if it was World War II that got the world out of the Great Depression, why aren't our wars working now? A good question to pose to your less economic-history-minded friends when the subject comes up.

Share this

Broken windows

War breaks a lot of windows. And digs a lot of holes. And fills them in! Must be great for the economy.

This is a war?

Because we are not on a war economy and pragmatically, no one is getting killed except theoretically enemy civilians. In the US we kill 100 times more Americans from drunk driving (our #1 national sport) than from warring.

I noticed a couple of days

I noticed a couple of days ago that the total cost of the Iraq & Afghanistan "conflicts" is, so far, about the same as the stimulus bill recently signed into law.

If we supposedly have an ~800 billion deficiency that requires a "stimulus", maybe not wasting the ~800 billion in the first place would have reduced the need for the stimulus now.

The difference, that most economists will argue, is that nowadays we fight wars differently: instead of building bridges and weapons here, we build them *over there*. No one explains why we do this, but that's the explanation. Hence, whatever country we are bombing gets the stimulus, rather than us. Or so they say.

It's not big enough...

Well, I thought it was that this war just isn't big enough?

Maybe we should attack China... That'd spur some economic growth!