At the end of the Second World War the top lobbyist of the defense industry came by President Truman.His message was that the army would return to the magnitude of before the war, the country would collapse into a recession. There had to be a large standing army, it had to be continually invested in new military technology and expensive wars had to be avoided. That was the only way to keep the military-industrial complex afloat. Truman saw the logic and appointed the man to the Minister of Defense.
Since then, the US has had one war after another.It was fought against communism and later Islamic terrorism, but it was often devised and meaningless conflicts: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq were the most famous wars and let us not forget the Cold War. The sales pitch to the electorate is that tyranny must be replaced by democracy. The reality is that the American economy is also about defence spending. Warfare is a major engine of the American economy. So the answer to the question is ‘ yes ‘.
For the economy: undoubtedly.
For the economic prosperity of the population: well no.The citizen ultimately pays the account of the capital destruction that has taken place.
It depends on how your economy defines and what war you have in mind.
A total nuclear war will have a disastrous effect on the world economy.
For example, the way in which war was fought in the 17th century was much less total than in the twentieth century.The numbers of Vechtenden and the fighting means were of a completely different order. In the 17th century, the Dutch economy certainly benefited from the Thirty Years ‘ War that was almost entirely outside the territory of the Republic and the main Dutch enemy (en), Spain (and the German Emperor) so occupied that Had other concerns on their heads than fighting the Republic.
In The Netherlands there was a scientific climate and relative religious freedom that has certainly promoted our economy.
War, in general, promotes technical innovation, reduces population pressures and creates a climate of change and renewal.On the negative side are the unilateral use of production capacity for war purposes and destruction of infrastructure, buildings and agricultural resources.
If you look at how the German economy has evolved at the time of the Second World War, I think it is clear that this was the case in Germany.Almost everything that was made and designed had to be done in-house and that helped the economy and the state of the technology to move forward nicely. Germany has also picked fruit from that later.
But if you look at other countries, Israel, Iraq, Iran, countries where there are many military supplies import product, then I doubt that.
Civil wars are again a completely different story of course.They destroy a country as a rule. Nothing cheaper.
Technological development, yes, a huge boost, and borrow a lot of money (War bonds) -so a lot of debt to pay off afterwards -that circulates.
War is the least charming force in an economy.It can certainly put a big momentum behind a number of industries. But the net impact on the world economy is always negative. War is by definition lowering value, something is always destroyed, there are always unnecessary costs involved. After that, there can always be a lot of building, but that is a kind of postponement of development that could have happened earlier.
There is always a taxpayer the pineut.The people pay for war.
It is not a driving force in my opinion.I would rather be farming and mining and trade, but war is a very influential source of economic renewal. Many new technology and new products and services have emerged as a result of technological developments and inventions made at the time of war. The majority of technology we use is developed thanks to wars. But the way we share the words and discovered knowledge and inventions is often due to trade.
War is destroying more than you love.
Destroying buildings and logistics, of course, leads to the need to be repaired again.But this can only be the same, if the necessary resources are present.
In The Netherlands, construction was virtually impossible without the help of the Allies.But that help was not necessarily free. Our country was obliged to decline products. For the suppliers this was of course advantageous. For the economy in their country, too. For the Netherlands initially less so. Only when Nedeland himself had a port, and production capacity, could it come back economically.
The driving force behind the Economist is investment and Inovation.The investments and inovations in the World War II were gigantic. A gigantic global infrastructure was established from ports and airfields, aircraft evolved from wood and canvas piston engine PROPELIR vligrkplanes to jet engines. The basis for the space flight was taken, and the first computers were built.
These investments were needed because it was about life and death.If the peacetime policy were to propose this kind of investment, the opposition would be right to say that hey is a waste of money and talk about budget deficits, etc.
But precisely those great settings are necessary.But in peacetime investments in alternative energy sources, health care, and residential construction could have the effect.
The investments and inovovaties have made Nexerland a world leader in Watermsnagement, and Dutch people earn billions from all over the world.
So inovation and investment.