![Yom-Kippur-war-010[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Q5kLrTP.jpg "Yom-Kippur-war-010[1].jpg")
Are wars beneficial to the economy? Is it a necessary evil?
>>318598
I think war can give a society a much needed boost or burst of vigor.
If ww3 occurs all these pansy men may disappear culturally.
it creates needed economic growth, however too much spending can make a country go under
>>318615
But don't you have to spend the money on developing said military technology? Increasing the consumption is only necessary in crisis times.
Destruction creates fertile ground for profitable investment. The post-WWII Golden Age certainly wouldn't have been possible without it.
>>318624
yes. thats exactly what i said.
>>318598
I don't know if it's truly needed. I don't even know if it's a determining factor. Their are plenty of examples of successful economies that never went to war and successful economies that were constantly at war. But I guess it can beneficial in the right circumstances. But it isn't 100% neeeded.
Resources get destroyed through war. It's not a good thing.
>>318722
elaborate
There are a shitload of factors.
I can't sit here and explain it all now, but generally modern conventional war is extremely bad unless you are economically self sufficient (the taxpayer dollars go to weapons, fuel and human resources produced by your nation, thus circulating the money). and you take minimal invasion damage.
Now that sanctions et cetera exist, even that window is smaller.
now in olDschooL TIMES, therE WAS MUCH LESS ECONOMIC DAMAGE, at least if you won quickly. The only direct economic damage you take is a slight reduction in human resources and a sloppy political mess, such as the rebellion vs the tuetonic order that lasTED ONE HUNDRED YEARS. iF YOU CAN QUELL political problems quickly and are victorious then seige warfare of old DID LITTLE DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS.
NO SOURCES AND SORRY ABOUT2 32aps baby is messing with keyboard
No. Wars usually have massive cost overruns that no one accounts for. They're also usually more complex and take much longer than projected
For instance, in 1914 people believed that WWI would take just a few months
>>318598
Only economies that require unstable growth.
>>318598
Depends on the cirucumstances.
One could argue that WW2 brought us out of the depression, but on the other hand the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have a been a drain on the US economy for the last decade.
>>318722
Resources having to be replaced is a good thing as well.
Similar to how there's a boost in the construction sector when a disaster happens.
>>318976
No they havn't rofl.
We literally seek out retarded rebellions that would be ez too crush to get some stimulus.
>>318598
>Are wars beneficial to the economy
Hell no, the massive waste of human resources and shift in production and investment focus in goods that have no use other than destruction and aggression isn't beneficial at all except for the military lobbies and maybe a few other companies.
The only way war could be beneficial is if the "winner" can either seize some valuable resource and/or force the loser to give some sort of service or collaboration, which is completely archaic and unrealistic in today's scenario.
>Is it a necessary evil
No evil is necessary, it's just a silly lie of people who manage to lucrate on the misfortune of others.
>>318999
>It's not beneficial to things such as all the metal mining companies in the country and all of their employees, as well as delivery services and other, and of course all the money they make on producing these weapons is spent on cocain from outside countries
That being said, this is fairly /pol/. Neither you or me have read into the economics of pre industrial revolution warfare because we have limited time.
I've been arguing in the meta thread to reform the template style this forum uses and reward users more for fetching sources and reading history books to nourish the hobby but it doesn't seem that it'll be the case.
>>318995
So you assume the Government being trillions in debt partly due to those wars is a good thing?
The sheer fact that congress can't make a decent budget becuase of that debt has been a drain on the economy too
>>318988
>le broken window fallacy
>>319030
I'm taking some finance atm but as far as I know the debt sitting there and nipping at the United States only does do much damage assuming we invest our money.
Keep in mind the U.S. makes 7-17 trillion dollars a year.
sorry for the politics derail
bump for interest
someone summarize this shito
>>318598
Not necessarily I'd argue. Just look at Switzerland and how it's prospered over time while it hasn't been involved in any wars for centuries.
>>319030
In a weird keynesian way, no as long as the economic boost is larger than the debt incrued. And that's assuming the spending doesn't lead to productivity gains or new technology.
>>318609
>If ww3 occurs all these pansy men may disappear culturally.
The sheer apocalyptic horror of WWI is what sowed the seeds of disillusionment with the grandeur of war in the first place, m8.
>>318598
If the economy is vastly underutilized, in a sense, yes.
All GDP is, is value of production each year.
If the world production value goes up because of a war, then the economy grew.
Of course, if a bunch of shit gets destroyed by a war then value is lost.
If the war spending lasts too long it puts people who are more productive in business into the unproductive military, crowding out productivity in the long term.
Finally, resource consumption and pollution may increase at a higher rate than the "productive" rate.
So short term, war spending generally is good, especially if the economy is underutilized.
If a war destruction happens and the spending last 2-3 years, it becomes a long term negative.
>>318598
>Are wars beneficial to the economy?
yes, they helps to technological development and who cares about money when you have to sacrifice everything you have (fuck the starving plebs who has to die in trenches) just to win?
>necessary evil?
dunno, I hope not. Also arms race might create false high GDP which do not actually advance quality of lives of average people at all.
>>320316
We could have pumped billions of dollars into anything we wanted and made all kinds of technological developments. It didn't have to be war. War is probably the worst thing we could have chosen because ways to kill eachother don't really help us that much.
And GDP only measures the health of corporations. Every time someone gets diagnosed with cancer and has to mortgage their house for cancer treatments the GDP goes up. Is that really how you want to measure what's good for us?
>>320516
>Is that really how you want to measure what's good for us?
Don't mean you specifically. If that's not clear.
>>318598
war is actually terrible for the economy. theyre expensive as fuck. its only good if you're a non belligerent who can profit off supplying one side or the other, like japan and spain during world war one.
>>318598
Well, let's take the USA in the after math of WWII as a case study and you tell me.
Wars might be able to help you out of a slump, you can kickstart economic activity by creating demand for product, causing people to become employed, and get the ball rolling. They'll also work for promissory notes with no immediate value due to rationing, so people will be engaging in lots of economic activity without a proportional amount of short term expectation, in other words investments a self perpetuating slump would cause them to avoid. In the long term that expectation is paid off once your economy is thriving again. On the other hand, if you lose, whatever.
If your economy is doing well or at high capacity, I don't think it would help.
>>318598
It depends, it's good if you win, didn't waste all your resources in the process, and the treaty at the end doesn't fuck your country.
>>318598
>is breaking windows necessary to keep the economy strong?
No. Every dime spent destroying and fixing things could have been used improving that which already exists.
>>318637
The markets were fertile before. The post war boom was due to Keynesian economic investment into the economy.
Wars aren't good the the economy. Large fiscal spending us usually good for the economy but a lot of the time there isn't a political will to undertake it due to establishment fiscal policy orthodoxy. However, war in one of the few cases where large deficit spending becomes politically feasible.
