While the economics of war is a net negative, it does have some plusses. Technological advance was accelerated, especially during WWII. The bombing blitz of London resulted in a lot of slums in the East End of Lundon to be demolished and replaced. The saturation bombing of Germany must have been even better at clearing away old propertie…
While the economics of war is a net negative, it does have some plusses. Technological advance was accelerated, especially during WWII. The bombing blitz of London resulted in a lot of slums in the East End of Lundon to be demolished and replaced. The saturation bombing of Germany must have been even better at clearing away old properties. While this might be an extreme version of the "broken window fallacy", the replacement housing generally was more modern and better for living. In Britain, and certainly in germany and Japan, the post WWII period was time of both good economic growth and changed politics. I think Krugman said that WWII was instrumental in ending the Great Depression in the US. What would have been the counterfactual for the next 30 years if WWII had not be fought?
While the economics of war is a net negative, it does have some plusses. Technological advance was accelerated, especially during WWII. The bombing blitz of London resulted in a lot of slums in the East End of Lundon to be demolished and replaced. The saturation bombing of Germany must have been even better at clearing away old properties. While this might be an extreme version of the "broken window fallacy", the replacement housing generally was more modern and better for living. In Britain, and certainly in germany and Japan, the post WWII period was time of both good economic growth and changed politics. I think Krugman said that WWII was instrumental in ending the Great Depression in the US. What would have been the counterfactual for the next 30 years if WWII had not be fought?