A lot of folks have put forth the idea that war is good for the economy...it stimulates manufacturing in certain industries and whatnot, and government spending increases also stimulate the economy and whatnot.

I'd simply like to label these ideas as "Keynesian," after John Maynard Keynes, who started this notion that spending of ANY KIND can somehow "jumpstart" an economy. It underlies the popular belief that the economy would get better if only the consumer would spend more, and that war is good.

Well I have to disagree. The consumer can only spend as much as he/she produces, and if production is strangled by regulation or taxes, then the rest of the "stimulus" is just borrowing on future earnings, not real production, not real earnings, a borrowing economy instead of an actually expanding economy.

A good example is a kid throws a rock and breaks a window. A Keynesian would espouse that this is actually good the local economy because the glass maker has to replace the glass and that creates jobs for people who work for him and for the people who supply him with the raw materials for making glass...true enough, for the glass maker, but if that were really true than we could just break more glass, burn more buildings, and destroy more cars, and we'd all prosper, right? Wrong...the net result to the economy is MINUS ONE GLASS WINDOW. A loss. No more, and no less.

And so it is with war, which is just more destruction on a grander scale, that "stimulates" certain industries.

Is it really so hard to understand that killing and destruction are not productive activities? To a Keynesian, perhaps it is...

Unfortunately i have to leave work--if i can call it what i do here, but i'm sorry i couldn't stick around to the discuss this more.
peace brother.

mrchristian said:

yeah i know we sorta started this in that other thread...i'll be around...

enjoy...