Is war really "good" for the Economy? I would like to hear ur take on it. Examples welcome.tx?

Question

A colleague of mine proposed that war is good for the Economy. I realized that this is not the first time someone has expressed this idea. After thinking on it further, I've come to believe that although my friend may have a point, he has overgeneralized and is erroneous in that he neglected to notice the profound difference between a "good/bad war" or (a war that is being won and is well commanded both pragmatically and morally) VS. (a war which is mismanaged and draining to the state). I've surmised that while the former may indeed provide economic boost, the later scenario would ultimately have a deleterious effect on the entirety of the nation and its citizens, which would include that of its economy. Do you agree with me? Why, or Why not?

Would love for you to cite examples of times when war has provided economic stimulus (what industry flourished,why?)

And times when war has hurt the economy, and why? Thanks all. ;)

Answer 1

the iraq war is good for some people and bad for others...at present Bush, Cheney & the Bin Laden family are all making LOTS of $$$....i hope you are too!

Answer 2

well war is good for the economy of those countries that do not wage it, producing weapons and selling them to the warring countries is profitable but sinister cause it only brings more death and destruction.

Answer 3

well there good for the economy because after we destroy the citie people from the USA come an drebuild it. when they get paided they com eback to the USA and spend it at our stores

Answer 4

The US is forced to produce weapons every now and then; it sells some of it's weapons to terrorist countries like Saudi Arabia and the remaining wepaons it uses up before getting expired and also for making space for the new weapons to come out; to keep the industry flourishing.

  

It can even go as far as creating enemies and terrorists just for the sake of using these weapons.

There is no such thing as "good war". But war is good for the economy in the short run.

Not only does war make space for new weapons to be produced, it allows a country to take control of another country's resources, such as oil. Instead of focusing on ways to combat or avert the need for these resources, countries waste time and money trying to gain control over them.

In other words, war is a stupid way of dealing with issues. Its like killing fire with fire. And no I dont agree with you on the basis that a "good war" can ever exist, regardless of its cause.

Answer 5

Some wars are and some arnt, Iraq war isnt because we didnt take the countrys resources like oil, yet world war 1 and 2 were great for th e economy

Answer 6

World Wars have traditionally been quiet good for the economy.  The WW II brought the U.S. out of the Great Depression.  As the economy slides deeper and deeper into recession, you will begin to hear more and more how war is good for the economy.  People begin to state such things, as they work themselves up to becoming more and more accepting of the idea of a massive war, to pull the U.S. out of a very probable depression.

World War III will be very different than the first two wars.  When the young people return from World War III, they will not find a booming economy.  The actual war itself may drag the U.S. out of recession, or depression.  However, once it end, the U.S. will be right back in it....probably even deeper than when the war started.

After World War II, the U.S. basically turned the entire war machine, into the agriculture machine.  Tractors were made instead of tanks.  Nitrates which once made bombs were turned into fertilizer. Chemicals were turned into insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. The whole modern era of agriculture was born.  This modern era of agriculture allowed the entire worlds populations to explode beyond all reason.

Add in the medical bennifits of anestesia, antibiotics, and vaccines (also because of the war machine) it allowed human populations to explode even further.

Now the entire global economy is tied together.  What happens in one country can very much affect the stockmarket in another country....and in peoples perceptions.  Look at rice.  There is NO shortage of it in the U.S.A.  However panic buying has cleared store shelves.  I watched on my local news station here in Idaho, a young couple (not Asian), panic buying 50 pound sacks of rice.  I bet they loaded 30 fifty pound sacks of rice into the back of their Suburban on that news story.  What is a young white couple going to do with nearly a ton of rice?

So what countries will the U.S. go to war with, that will not start a panic here?  Hint....there isn't a single one that wouldn't start a chain reaction ecconomic panic.

What will happen to the price of fuel, if we do go to war?  When World War II happened, a lot of people still didn't own an automobile, and were not at all dependant on them.  We didn't need nearly the amount of oil and gas during WW II that are required today.  So if the world goes to war, where exactly is all that extra fuel going to come from?  The world cannot actually produce enough oil to run a war, and to keep all the automobiles in the U.S. (and other parts of the world) mobile.

So if the oil is being diverted to fill the tanks of Navy ships, and Army convoys, who exactly stops getting the oil?  What happens when the nitrates are needed to make bombs, and not the fertilizers modern farmers have become COMPLETELY dependant on?  There are no more cattle on the corn farms of Iowa, or the wheat fields of Kansas.  The cattle live on manure mountains, in feed lots,  in Illinois, Texas, and the Dakotas.  How are we going to trasport the manure to the farms to fertilize the crops, several states away?  

I'm sure some people think we could just trasport the livestock back, and diversify farms once again.  Some of those states, bairly have any fences left.  Anyone want to venture a guess as to how many millions of miles of fencing would need to be put up, to re-diversify farms?

The war machine, of World War three, will not be able to turn itself over into the agriculture machine, and the auto industry.  There will not be a housing boom after the soldiers come home.  Gas will be too expensive.  People will be forced to live in cities, in tiny apartments, and use subways, and the bus system.  Private cars will be for the extremely wealthy.  

By the way, what will World War III be fought over?  More than likely, over oil.  So who wins?  Most of the goods in the U.S. from tennis shoes, tires, clothing, more and more of our food, 85% of our medication, toys, computers, furniture.....you name it, and it's made overseas and imported to the U.S.A.  It's cheaper to make it elsewhere.  Of course in the long run, as we loose our infrastructure to manufacture our own products, even to grow our own food, U.S. citizens will find it was not truely "cheaper."  

I also have not even touched on what would happen to the global economy (much less our own) if nuclear weapons were used, or biological weapons that started a pandemic.

By the way, just a "cheery" final note to leave you with.  China STILL teaches their military that "War with the United States is inevitable."  If that is what they believe, and teach, it will come to pass.

~Garnet

Permaculture homesteading/farming over 20 years

Answer 7

All wars are business ventures for some .

always

so is religion

part of the ancient strategy of Divide and Rule that goes strong even today

the leadership always ,has used religion to separate the people ,and then made war to profit from the conflicts

and those that were left over would be less and easier to control.

Nothing has changed ,it is happening again

Propaganda and events create religious or racial hatred .

Then we will have an economic recession ,

and the climate will be correct to have more war

So it has always been and always will be

War is the most profitable concept around .

But never for the public .only for those that rule

it is wishful thinking that makes the public believe that the authorities are there to save them ,

whilst all the time they are

just pawns in the games of the leaders.

far more leading elements ,such as queens ,presidents ,dictators are related to each other ,than to their public if not all

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bloodl...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_93356.htm...

Answer 8

While it's true that WWII may have brought the US out of a depression, look at what our current war did:  it took the US out of one of the greatest economic expansions it has ever know in the 90s.  And because this war has dragged on and on, it has cost us WAY more than anyone in our government had planned for.  To pay for this war (and Bush's unprecedented tax CUTS during a time of war), we have had to go into debt as a nation.  This hurts the value of the US dollar, and it hurts the economy.  Just about every other currency, from the euro to the Japanese yen to the Brasillian real is significantally higher against the dollar over the last few years.  

Another problem that war causes is it sends some of our best people overseas to fight, when they could be back home working and contributing to our economy.  Many employers have complained that they can't find enough highly skilled workers to hire, and therefore are not expanding as fast as they would like to.  Well I know of about 100,000 highly skilled employees in Iraq that would certainly help that cause!

I think WWII was an exception in that it helped boost our economy because we were in such a huge depression at the time.  Most of the time war is NOT good for the economy.

Answer 9

war is not good. imagine having war inside  your family. i dont think its good for all the members. always have peace talks. Or worst Wolrd war and then the history happens again.