1billsfan Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Meanwhile in WWII our allies and enemies were bombing each others industrial capacity to rubble And life on the homefront wasn't exactly a consumers paradise either Somehow we went from talking about Obama and his complete failure as president at turning around the economy to talking about WWII. Liberals will direct the discussion to anything other than today's economy. What about FDR? What about WWII? Speaking of WWII, how about that movie "Saving Private Ryan"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Meanwhile in WWII our allies and enemies were bombing each others industrial capacity to rubble And that's what it was really all about. After the war the US was really the only major country that had the capacity to produce anything. Somehow we went from talking about Obama and his complete failure as president at turning around the economy to talking about WWII. Liberals will direct the discussion to anything other than today's economy. What about FDR? What about WWII? Speaking of WWII, how about that movie "Saving Private Ryan"? That's not a liberal gameplan, that's a PPP gameplan you numbskull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Meanwhile in WWII our allies and enemies were bombing each others industrial capacity to rubble And life on the homefront wasn't exactly a consumers paradise either The US citizen in World War 2 is the only citizen in any war in recorded history to enjoy an increasing standard of living. Even, I think, Japanese-Americans, on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Somehow we went from talking about Obama and his complete failure as president at turning around the economy to talking about WWII. Liberals will direct the discussion to anything other than today's economy. What about FDR? What about WWII? Speaking of WWII, how about that movie "Saving Private Ryan"? Speaking of Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks supports Barack Obama. Hanks is a good actor so you should support Obama too. And you should also give money to Obama's Perpetual Presidential Campaign. Because if you don't, Mitt Romney will become President and black people will be forced back into slavery, gays rounded up into concentration camps, Hispanics hunted for sport, and women will be forced to live like June Cleaver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 It's a myth that war causes economic growth. Otherwise Iraq and Afghanistan would spur our economy. The reason the U.S. economy started to improve during the war was mainly because all the economic experimentation and tinkering took a backseat to the war and natural economic cycles resumed. Then once the war ended everyone came home optimistic and we saw an explosion of economic growth. It's worth noting that the growth occurred primarily in the private sector and with relatively little government intervention; it was a return to normality. how many ships, planes, and tanks were built for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? - what was the industrial expansion? my contention wouldn't be that war per say spurs the economy but that huge investment in industrial expansion, productive capability and putting to work unused labor does-btw when the war ended Europe and Asia was in shambles, we implemented the Marshall Plan for Europe and later an economic plan for Japan- That economic aid wasn't just beneficial to the countries that received the aid but also to American industries at least until Europe and Japan became strong competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Somehow we went from talking about Obama and his complete failure as president at turning around the economy to talking about WWII. Liberals will direct the discussion to anything other than today's economy. What about FDR? What about WWII? Speaking of WWII, how about that movie "Saving Private Ryan"? It's because people insist on responding to EiI. Guaranteed thread derailment while they chase a spook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) how many ships, planes, and tanks were built for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? - what was the industrial expansion? my contention wouldn't be that war per say spurs the economy but that huge investment in industrial expansion, productive capability and putting to work unused labor does-btw when the war ended Europe and Asia was in shambles, we implemented the Marshall Plan for Europe and later an economic plan for Japan- That economic aid wasn't just beneficial to the countries that received the aid but also to American industries at least until Europe and Japan became strong competitors. How are you increasing the standard of living by expanding an industry that provides nothing but war supplies? Edited July 9, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) How are you increasing the standard of living by expanding an industry that provides nothing war supplies? during the war - full employment( unemployment 23.6% in 1932 unemployment 1.9% by 1945),increases in job skills, advances in manufacturing techniques, Research and Development, factory floor space, after the war the GI bill, pent up housing demand, baby boom, interstate Highway, exports to Europe and Japan, Space program. Edited July 9, 2012 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 during the war - full employment( unemployment 23.6% in 1932 unemployment 1.9% by 1945),increases in job skills, advances in manufacturing techniques, Research and Development, factory floor space, after the war the GI bill, pent up housing demand, baby boom, interstate Highway, exports to Europe and Japan. So we agree that increasing production of goods and services, and not employing people to build war supplies, is what creates growth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 during the war - full employment( unemployment 23.6% in 1932 unemployment 1.9% by 1945),increases in job skills, advances in manufacturing techniques, Research and Development, factory floor space, after the war the GI bill, pent up housing demand, baby boom, interstate Highway, exports to Europe and Japan, Space program. 400,000 fewer working age males Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 So we agree that increasing production of goods and services, and not employing people to build war supplies, is what creates growth? I would agree that I don't advocate war as a means to solve a deflationary economic crisis - but I would say massive difficult undertakings provide benefits that Bean counters don't appreciate, The things you learn doing or failing to do the near impossible are priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's because people insist on responding to EiI. Guaranteed thread derailment while they chase a spook. I must really be under your skin for some reason... Lighten up Francis. Just block me if you can't handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's a myth that war causes economic growth. Otherwise Iraq and Afghanistan would spur our economy. The reason the U.S. economy started to improve during the war was mainly because all the economic experimentation and tinkering took a backseat to the war and natural economic cycles resumed. Then once the war ended everyone came home optimistic and we saw an explosion of economic growth. It's worth noting that the growth occurred primarily in the private sector and with relatively little government intervention; it was a return to normality. Actually, it usually does cause economic growth. It's just not a lasting increase, because it's driven by a market that's essentially temporary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Somehow we went from talking about Obama and his complete failure as president at turning around the economy to talking about WWII. Liberals will direct the discussion to anything other than today's economy. What about FDR? What about WWII? Speaking of WWII, how about that movie "Saving Private Ryan"? Isn't the thread about Mitt being a dirty cheat... How did we skip to talking about Obama. Boy, you got "selective thread memory." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 during the war - full employment( unemployment 23.6% in 1932 unemployment 1.9% by 1945),increases in job skills, advances in manufacturing techniques, Research and Development, factory floor space, after the war the GI bill, pent up housing demand, baby boom, interstate Highway, exports to Europe and Japan, Space program. And then there's the fact that the US was a very special case, and not one to base any conclusions on. Unlike most war economies, the US economy in WWII put a TON of cash into the hands of consumers (not just the workers at home...the troops overseas made a good chunk of money with little to spend it on). For a variety of reasons, you see that in very few other wars. AND, don't forget that there was actually a significant post-war recession. It's not like prosperity started in '41, and lasted eighteen years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Actually, it usually does cause economic growth. It's just not a lasting increase, because it's driven by a market that's essentially temporary. The problem is that the temporary market doesn't produce anything to improve the standard of living. It only serves the purpose of war. The ensuing employment, for purposes of domestic growth, is not practically different from paying people to dig holes and then fill them in, and the industry that is produced is no more productive to that end than a factory that produces mass units of boxed air sold to and purchased by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Actually, it usually does cause economic growth. It's just not a lasting increase, because it's driven by a market that's essentially temporary. Oh, for another Hundred Years' War. Isn't the thread about Mitt being a dirty cheat... How did we skip to talking about Obama. Same difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 The problem is that the temporary market doesn't produce anything to improve the standard of living. It only serves the purpose of war. The ensuing employment, for purposes of domestic growth, is not practically different from paying people to dig holes and then fill them in, and the industry that is produced is no more productive to that end than a factory that produces mass units of boxed air sold to and purchased by the government. I didn't say it causes a rise in the standard of living. Most major combatants (e.g. not the French) in WWII saw their economies grow significantly by most measures (until the losers lose) - even the Russians, who lost a ****-ton of their economic base in 1941. And it's usually not reflected in the standard of living. Like I said...the US in WWII is an exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I didn't say it causes a rise in the standard of living. Most major combatants (e.g. not the French) in WWII saw their economies grow significantly by most measures (until the losers lose) - even the Russians, who lost a ****-ton of their economic base in 1941. And it's usually not reflected in the standard of living. Like I said...the US in WWII is an exception. I'll give you a level of deference because you generally know what you're talking about, but I'm skeptical as to whether that is legitimate economic growth or just the appearance of economic growth due to an infusion of paper money, which is usually negated by an ensuing recession. Although, you did say temporary growth so I don't know that I'm necessarily contradicting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Isn't the thread about Mitt being a dirty cheat... How did we skip to talking about Obama. Boy, you got "selective thread memory." Alright, let's get back to Romney's Swiss Cayman offshore accounts. While we're on the topic of full transparency, how about Romney disclose these super secret accounts (assuming they exist) after Holder releases the full details of Fast & Furious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts