War is not good for the economy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War is always -EV. It can't possibly be +EV.

Let's look at the aspects of war.

There's control of resources (land, oil fields, whatever). This is basically EV neutral - either you control it or I do, we can't magically make more appear. Some of these resources will be destroyed during the conflict, but we'll account for that later.

There is the production aspect (tanks, bullets, bombs, etc). If this were +EV, why wouldn't we just build a bunch of bombs and constantly drop them in the ocean? Then we would get the supposed benefits of the increased production without killing anyone. Obviously, this production (in and of itself) is not beneficial, or else it would be conducted outside of war.

Next, there is the destruction (of buildings, infrastructure, etc). This obviously must be -EV, or else we would indiscriminately destroy things all the time. Of course, we do destroy buildings outside of war, but only when the alternative use of the property is higher than the value of the existing building. War destroys these useless buildings, but also destroys useful infrastructure (and in fact, seeks to destroy the most useful things).

Finally, there is the killing. Pretty clearly this is -EV. I hope that isn't up for debate.

So, every aspect of war is basically -EV (or neutral at *best*). On top of that, every aspect of war also violates human rights. Force is not a legitimate means of controlling property; taxation is not a legitimate means of increasing production; destruction of others' property is criminal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WWII didn't end the depression.

Before we examine why, it's important to note what caused the depression in the first place - mainly the Federal Reserve mucking with the money supply (i.e. stealing from the populace) and causing inflation.

The (incorrect) Keynesian view is that the depression (and recessions in general) was caused by consumers' failure to maintain spending levels. That's flat out wrong. The business cycle is caused DIRECTLY by manipulations of the money supply - inflation - directed by central banks.

War is expensive. The money that is poured into it has to come from somewhere - the people, through either taxes, or more inflation. Further, spending on war is money that is not helping the economy in the way typical consumer spending does.

During WWII, for instance, unemployment was low, but that was largely due to conscription. People who weren't in the service were working, and had money in their pockets, but didn't have a lot of spending choices due to rationing and shortages. In short, most people were still rather poor.

What actually ended the depression was the *end* of the New Deal, the government's "war on the economy". When the economy tanks, the government must be stopped from intervening - government monkeying is what causes the problem, why would anyone think more of it will help? Bad investments have to be liquidated. Government spending must be cut. Most importantly, the central bank must not try to "reinflate" the currency.