Quote :

"rallydurham: The reason we didn't have an equally powerful recovery and languished in hell for nearly 20 years (1929-1950) was because his wife hated the idea of people being successful for working hard and decided that all of our parents should grow up experiencing limited happiness."

If that's the case, then she failed.

Cause our parents generally make up the most self-centered, immediate pleasure-seeking, happy fucking generation ever.

3/27/2010 1:51:49 AM

Bridget you are one of the most twisted people in the world. Seeing your name makes me physically ill and I think if we were to fuck I'd choke you out so hard you wouldn't be able to rub your own clit for a week in a closed room. I'm also pretty sure we would spawn a Gremlin that would emerge from a microwave when I tried to make instant oatmeal in the morning.

3/27/2010 2:30:40 AM

Quote :

"HAVING A WAR DOES NOT HELP AN ECONOMY YOU FUCKING IDIOT."

Not now, it doesn't... But WWII was an enormous boon to the US economy. The army needed virtually everything American factories could manage to produce. Everyone who wasn't in the military was being pushed to get a job. Just look at the rubber and steel industries at the time period... they took the fuck off.

Normally I'd go find a legitimate source with statistical data, but this is Chit Chat, and you're an idiot with a very slim grasp on how thinking is supposed to work who likely wouldn't change his mind even after being presented with proof... so here's an "I'm Feeling Lucky" result from Google: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_World_War_2_affect_the_US_economy

3/27/2010 3:07:19 AM

eat my asshole you faggot liberal. It doesnt help an economy to produce destruction.

You are completely wrong, but thanks for producing a WIKI article to defend your twisted viewpoints.

3/27/2010 3:28:41 AM

Let's think about war for a second. The government, by taking the people's money, pays companies to create weapons, and then destroys capital with those weapons. Sure, the weapon companies make money. The citizens don't win. The people getting bombed don't win.

The military-industrial complex is not real economic growth. Economic growth has to come from savings and production. You have to make shit that people want to buy. The whole idea that you can create economic growth by blowing up buildings and killing people in other countries disgusts me.

3/27/2010 3:39:35 AM

^^
1. I'm not a liberal.

2. It's almost universally accepted as true from anyone with virtually any education on the matter.

3. I typed in "WWII affect economy" and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky". You're not worth the time to look any harder. If you want to know just how incredibly wrong you are, look it up yourself.

4. You seem to dislike FDR. Did you know that the "FDR didn't end the depression, WWII did" argument is often used by partisan hacks such as yourself to assert that FDR's policies were, in fact, mostly useless? In opposing the idea that WWII helped the economy, you're actually supporting FDR's policies. Way to go, champ.


[Edited on March 27, 2010 at 4:00 AM. Reason : chit chat]

3/27/2010 3:41:10 AM

All the fucking presidents sucked in their own way and all the presidents had their good points...every president is left to clean up the mess of the presidents before them...if you think you can run this damn country so perfectly run for office...if not then stfu

3/27/2010 4:14:50 AM

DID SOMEONE SAY OBAMA YET?

I SAY OBAMA IS THE WORST PRESIDENT. EH KILLS COUNTRIES AND DOESN'T NOTHING FOR NOBEL PEACE PRIZES.

3/27/2010 10:02:20 AM

destroyer just blew up your argument idiot and then you still posted your crap.

I dont give a fuck what uneducated people say ended the depression.

War does not lead to economic growth. It may inflate GDP short term but thats not growth its a misallocation of resources.

Just like all government spending.

3/27/2010 1:31:29 PM

shouldn't the title say excluding Nixon? FDR was much better than Nixon.

3/27/2010 1:33:00 PM

Zombie Reagan

3/27/2010 2:18:16 PM

Quote :

"Let's think about war for a second. The government, by taking the people's money, pays companies to create weapons, and then destroys capital with those weapons. Sure, the weapon companies make money. The citizens don't win. The people getting bombed don't win. The military-industrial complex is not real economic growth. Economic growth has to come from savings and production. You have to make shit that people want to buy. The whole idea that you can create economic growth by blowing up buildings and killing people in other countries disgusts me. "

Not all wars and eras are equal.

WWII definitely spun up industry and research that left its mark for decades. It pushed forward nuclear research, rocket research, and jet research, as well as various other developments in electronics and materials that would have come much more slowly otherwise.

3/27/2010 2:28:17 PM

Quote :

"It may inflate GDP short term but thats not growth its a misallocation of resources."

Yeah, it's the broken window fallacy. Bastiat and Hazlitt talk about it, and it addresses the argument if someone were to throw a brick through a window, it would actually create economic growth because someone has to make a new window, someone has to install it, etc. Now, that's partially true. Just like with WWII, sure, a lot of people were able to find jobs in manufacturing, which seems like economic stimulus. However, when you have raw materials going into bombs and bullets, which ultimately get destroyed or lost in war, and those are bombs that blow up buildings which required foreign capital to construct, then I do see it as a misallocation of resources.

In a perfect world, war would never be necessary. In fact, war is never truly necessary, but countries are often forced to respond to other countries that overstep their bounds. The resources that go into funding and fighting a war could be used for technological innovation, research, or domestic consumption, and I think all of those things are better in terms of real, sustainable economic growth.

Quote :

"WWII definitely spun up industry and research that left its mark for decades. It pushed forward nuclear research, rocket research, and jet research, as well as various other developments in electronics and materials that would have come much more slowly otherwise."

Not that I would support such a thing, but couldn't the government have done the same thing to "ramp up" production, but on things that were actually useful, rather than weapons? I agree that developments in electronics etc came out of it, but it's not like the war somehow made that possible, and it wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

[Edited on March 27, 2010 at 2:36 PM. Reason : ]

3/27/2010 2:30:57 PM

In the short run, wartime research and development can outdo private R+D (necessity breeds creativity). This fails in the long run, due to inherent inefficiencies.

3/27/2010 2:33:17 PM

Warren Harding

3/27/2010 3:25:10 PM

Chanukah Zombie

3/27/2010 7:53:19 PM

William Henry Harrison. I mean really, who dies just 32 days into being in office by a cold? So what if he was the last president born before the Declaration of Independence?

3/27/2010 9:50:54 PM