For what it's worth, as an amateur economist I agree with tw #132.
Some economists call it the broken window fallacy. Some say that if a baker's window is smashed by a hooligan, it's good for the economy, because it means the window has to be replaced, a glazier gets business and money is moving around. But if the money for that window went instead to, say, a new oven -- not only there is the economic activity of buying the oven, but there is then the ability for the baker to bake more things, be more productive... an advance.
Government can do things that increase productivity - like building bridges, schools, and supercolliders. These things continue to "give back" to productivity long after they're paid for.
It can do things that are actually anti-productive, like bridges to nowhere, ineffective programs, etc.
When it spends with war contractors, it's like spending money with the glazier; building a bomb doesn't actually make you more productive, so in one sense, it's economic activity lost. Of course without defense one has nothing, so it's not like money down a rathole.
|