<"War is good for the economy" doesn't mean "war is good," it means war stimulates the economy, in the short run. In the long run causes all kinds of problems - short run, too, of course. >
CB, that's like saying that exponentially increased production and an expanding economy produces inflation if there is an arithmetic money supply increase. Maybe in the short run while a few aircraft are built and troops put in uniform it's true [in a very narrow sense]. But not long later, war is economically destructive all round.
Building military aircraft, bombs and uniforms is as economically productive as digging holes and building mounds of dirt, then filling in the holes again.
There might be a lot of economic activity as defined by dollars changing hands, but there is no actual economic activity and when all the holes have been filled in again, the people living in the hole-digging economy will be baffled as to why they aren't all rich, driving Lexus, living in a palatial home with all electronic mod cons with a private jet to take them on holiday in paradise.
Economists live in a high GNP hole-digging world where War is good for the economy. It is wacky.
Yes, there are spin-off technologies, which are not as good or prolific as the technological developments would be if the investments were made directly in achieving said technologies for sensible purposes. The 'spinoff' idea is another stupid idea that economists and others use to back the insane argument that war is economically productive.
Mqurice
PS: Which is not to argue that military production isn't useful. It is useful and economically productive if there are forces to defeat which will otherwise attack and destroy. I'm simply saying that war for the sake of economic production is insane. So is arming if there is no threat [or potential threat]. |
