Do wars get us out of recessions? Like for the Great Depression and World War II?

Foreman wrote:

We're still paying for the Revolutionary War for that matter.

If I remember correctly, Andy Jackson paid off the debt. So we're still paying for everything after that. I think Truman also paid down some of it, but everyone since has added to it.

gamecock wrote:

Foreman wrote:

We're still paying for the Revolutionary War for that matter.

If I remember correctly, Andy Jackson paid off the debt. So we're still paying for everything after that. I think Truman also paid down some of it, but everyone since has added to it.

Yes, Andy did it, and almost paid for it too...

And just like Climategate reality won't set in until the very last penny has been squandered in America. Of course by then, well by then reality will have set in.

Astonishing how few 'get it'. Having a discussion here on Letsrun about it, is like trying to converse with chimps on partical physics. Shouldn't be surprised, someone said earlier here that those with smaller heads have higher birthrates!

Chimps don't understand money very well, unless its shiny.

I love peeps-

Gotta say, your first couple posts have hit the nail on the head. As a worker in the Defense industry, it's nice to see that some people "get it."

not a commie wrote:

Why not do something productive with the soldiers? Bring them home and ...disable factories

WTF? Disabling factories is productive?

Unfortunately yes, wars create growth. The British invented the industrial revolution, created race superiority mythologies and fed the hatred to their people, cranked up the war machines, then murdered 100,000 people across the globe including their own waters in Ireland. The Germans, Russians, Japanese, Dutch, Spanish, Portugese, and United States copied the British Empire and did same many times over. Obama is a wretched murdering Nazi-Zionist in the same vein as W. Bush, Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Tricky Dick. Obama will burn in hell for all eternity for his crimes against humanity.

I don't think so. My memory from my history classes is we paid down a lot of debt in the early 1800s but not all of it. Of course as time goes on there are is just a debt that includes all sorts of things. But really, when you look at the debt, its pretty much to pay for the all the wars we ever fought.

I love peeps wrote:

gamecock wrote:

If I remember correctly, Andy Jackson paid off the debt. So we're still paying for everything after that. I think Truman also paid down some of it, but everyone since has added to it.

Yes, Andy did it, and almost paid for it too...

And just like Climategate reality won't set in until the very last penny has been squandered in America. Of course by then, well by then reality will have set in.

Astonishing how few 'get it'. Having a discussion here on Letsrun about it, is like trying to converse with chimps on partical physics. Shouldn't be surprised, someone said earlier here that those with smaller heads have higher birthrates!

Chimps don't understand money very well, unless its shiny.

Obama sent the 30k troops so that they could get the required experience before he brings them back to bust our skulls open if we even think about revolting against all the damage our government has and is causing.

This recession was caused by a war or did you forget?

wars like ww2 may lower unemployments, but not in a "good way" as mtndew has said.

think about it, people are working, BUT people are producing tanks/guns/battleships - war related products that the average person is not buying.

there remains a shortage of products, lots of people getting paychecks and few consumer products being made. too much money chasing too few goods = inflation.

people are then forced to plant "victory gardens" etc

further, these war items need to be paid for, so the people get taxed massively. wars my occupy peoples time, but they do not end depressions.

obamas stim spending has not and will not end this recession. it will cause inflation and continue to weaken the dollar.

Precious Roy wrote:

Massive wartime spending set in motion a permanent recovery for the US economy after the great depression. However, the real reason the US was prosperous in the post-war period was because the US was untouched in WWII (except for Hawaii) and the rest of the world was destroyed by WWII. US manufacturing had virtually no competition in the post war period. Thus, any economic benefit from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will fall well short of the kind of economic boom WWII bestowed on the US because the US will not see a rise in manufacturing and exports.

We have a winner! You are correct. The U.S. was the ONLY major industrial power that still had any serious productive capacity at the end of WWII. Add to that the fact that new consummer products, like cars, nylon stockings, radios and everything else taken for granted today, were vitually unavailable during the war years. For example, most of the auto companies had switched over to war-related production during the war years, so you couldn't buy a new car for any amount of money. So there was enormous pent-up consummer demand by the end of the war, both domestically and abroad, that took years to satisfy. Then there was the post-war baby boom that fueled massive expansion of cities and the birth of the suburbs as we know them today -- also contributing to economic growth. So in terms of economic impact, it is absurd to compare a global war to our current military actions.

The lack of education being displayed on this thread is scaring the hell out of me.

First Mnt. Dew- I am very happy that your points are clear, a rarity on these boards, but the rest of your argument is the odd kind of revisionist history that you find in skin head manifesto's. If New Deal spending and Hoover's do nothing approach both made the depression worse and WW2 spending didn't end it, then what, I fearfully ask, did?

The truth is that massive Government spending can end a depression or recession in the right situation. That situation is the opposite of what sam w. is saying. If we can pay the average person to build stuff that they aren't buying that we are selling all over the world at very high demand, like tanks and airplanes that is great news. It is a huge influx of money into our pockets from other nations. Our government was buying plenty of them to, but they were doing it with maintainable taxation and without just printing up money as they wished. So inflation was controlled and the currency remained strong.

Now the other end of the spectrum is the massive Government spending in Great Britain during WW2 with no way to sustain it in terms of tax income with the vast majority of that spending going to other nations pockets it was a downward spiral for their economy that coupled with the destruction of their infrastructure during the war took decades to fully dig out of.

Mnt. Dew- the reasons that the US so heavily supports Israel isn't zionist propaganda- again get away from the skinhead reading lists. Though Truman recognized them as a nation in the 50's it was an issue that most of the country didn't care about and that Truman did on mostly personal and ideological reasoning. The US then had a nearly completely hands off approach until the 7 days war in the late 60's. Israel's stunning victory in that war against what appeared impossible odds won them amazing general popularity in the US. This made supporting them good at home politics in the US. As this policy has been followed since then the general view of Israel as an important partner in world affairs has remained strong in the general population. Also Israel has provided us with much needed support and cover in international affairs over the past few decades.

Lastly the thing history teaches us most clearly is that there are no simple answers. Do wars end recessions? yes in the right situation. Do wars start recessions and crush economies? yes in the right situation. Is the world ruled by a covert group of Jews hell bent on holding poor good white folks down? No! Stop reading that shit!

It is quite possible to have ROADS, without the government providing them. It is a straw man argument to say that society needs X and so government (taxes) is the only way to provide it. I simply do not agree with that statement.[/quote]

WHAT!!!! are you retarded?

Wars are funded on borrowed money and eventually that money has to be paid back or your currency has no value in the eyes of the rest of the world. Unless a way is created to pay back the money, a war will only make things worse.

I think you have me confused with somebody else. I have never said anything about zionist propaganda.

If you think Hoover had a "do nothing approach" you need to reread your history. Hoover was a huge interventionist. He signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff and enacted all sorts of reforms that were like a proto New Deal. He was one of the main voices 8 years earlier telling Harding he needed to act to stop the recession of 1920/21, but thankfully they disgregarded his advice and thus averted a long, drawn out downturn.

Government spending stimulates an economy like pouring water from the deep end into the shallow end of a pool makes the water level rise.

Hoover was a do nothing. It was Roosevelt's New Deal and WWII that got the U.S. out of the depression. Obama on the other hand is doing half right and half wrong. He has stimulated growth by pumping money into the economy, but has not ended U.S. involvement in the Middle East. 9-11 was retaliation for original 1940's U.S. invasion and occupation of Palestine. Obama must return the land and pay reparations to the survivors on the U.S. genocide in Palestine, withdrawl totally from Iraq and Afghanistan. Then his stimulus money will have positive net effect on the U.S. recovery from the W. Bush fiasco.

WWII required the entire country to pitch-in. Women at home donated panty hoses, empty soup cans, egg shells, and even labor at the factories. All other Americans donated old tires, copper, and almost anything else the wartime effort asked.

Many thousands of young men went off to a war that television did not cover like today. Many of those young men were killed.

Today is not like then. We know what is going to happen down to the hour, maybe even minute. We have high powered machinery that allows our military to be thousands of miles away, like we saw on 60 Minutes. Pilots flying remote controlled planes in Afghanistan from Las Vegas.

No it will not bring us out of a recession. The early 1950's building boom and Marshall Plan brought us out of hard times in the 40's and 50's.

100% Wrong wrote:

Hoover was a do nothing. It was Roosevelt's New Deal and WWII that got the U.S. out of the depression.

Are you high? Go back and read almost any history book on the Great Depression. Hoover was a "do something" president. He was heavily involved with government intervention in WWI and pleaded Harding and Coolidge to do more during their presidencies. The stock market crash gave Hoover his opportunity to act. The "do nothing" myth is derived from the "do everything" FDR.

While you're looking into Hoover, I suggest reviewing your assertion that the New Deal ended the depression. Hint, you're "100% Wrong."

For further reading, I suggest looking into the 1920-1921 recession. It actually started worse off than the Great Depression. Granted, their origins were different (WWI caused the first) but not as different as the reactions of the government. Unfortunately, the 1920-21 recession wasn't nearly as exciting as the New Deal and FDR and thus it has largely been forgotten.

Actually, the one thing America still manufactures is weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe there is a basic flaw in our capitalist system if we need constant wars to keep the economy going?