Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,993
- 776
- 126
First of all, let's be clear, even if wars were good for the economy - you don't kill people for that. That's murder.
Second, wars are only good for the country if we're taking something from others of value - e.g., the war on Mexico was 'good for the economy' because we stole half their country. Wars are only good otherwise if we don't spend the money for something better - a factory building things that are destroyed is worse than a factory building something productive for society - food, roads, whatever. Eisenhower made the point clearly in his 'cross of iron' speech about excessive military spending.
I wasn't, of course, advocating war, i was making a couple of points:
That military buildup and going to war is, in itself, not beneficial to the economy (as seen in what's happening in the middle east), but in the specific case where it prevents other countries from building up an industrial base, it certainly contributes to a nationalized monopoly on industry. This was more of a critique on capitalism, libertarianism, and free trade than anything else, that the middle and working class only benefited from it because it was an accident of sorts.