Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
That is a very popular lie. Again, when does growth finally appear on spread sheets and GDP? More than four years later.
We spent on Vietnam in the late 60s and early 70s. What resulted? A massive recession throughout the 70s and into Reagan's first term. We had to pay bills for that war.
We spent massively on Mission Accomplished in the early 2000s. And so the latter 2000s were a major recession.
Desert Storm was not recessionary. We did not pay for it. Rest of the world did. Japan was the number one contributor. So a serious recession did not happen many years later - according to spread sheets.
Too many confuse employment (activity) and money movement with growth. It only means growth when what results (four and more years later) is something tangible. War means nothing useful exists four plus years later. So economics takes its revenge. Borrowed money must now be paid back while no profit exists from all that work.
A destroyed bridge means plenty of work. To only replace what was lost. Nothing was gained. Europe and Japan finally recovered from WWII after 1970.
WWII meant many Europeans and Japanese were employees of US companies - that prospered from their labors. What happened to those industries? They were sold to pay for Vietnam.
|
So what you're saying is that there was no growth in the 40s and 50s?