Or is it?
A subject which needs debating.
http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/03/21/war-is-not-good-for-the-economy/
War is horrible… but it’s good for the economy. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a more dangerous myth than that. This facade has become so prevalent in the national conscience that it’s simply taken for granted. The reasoning for this myth comes from an offshoot of Keynesian economics, in summary it says war stimulates aggregate demand and thereby gets the wheels of the economy turning again (or turning faster).
>>>>>
Zim:
War, per se, is not good for the economy. It is
destructive and it piles on debt.
On the flip side, factories built for the war effort
can churn out consumer goods at an unbelievable rate.
Technologies developed for the war effort inevitably
find themselves being 're-purposed' for civilian
needs.
We built numerous miles of rail road tracks during
the Civil War . . . after the War those same tracks
saved our farmers and factories tons of money in
shipping costs.
Factories to make trucks during WWI made trucks for
farmers after the war. Again, saving our farmers
and factories millions over the costs of horse drawn
transports.
And it just goes on and on and on.
Decomposed loves to gripe that deficit spending
causes inflation . . . so how come We did not
have high inflation during the Vietnam War - in
spite of the zillions spent on the war effort.
While Bush the second was waging his Wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan inflation was not bad . . . in spite
of the record deficits.
Personally, I liked the way Reagan waged War. He
employed a grunch of folks making ships for the Navy,
and engaged the Russians in an Arms Race . . . they
lost. And our economy prospered.
I plan on researching this a bit more.
Zim.
| 
