MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2011 No, Mr. Krugman ⦠War is NOT Good for the Economy Military Keynesianism Gone Haywire: Paul Krugman Pines For World War ... Based On Ginned-Up Reasons As I have repeatedly documented, influential Americans are lobbying for war in order to save the American economy - what is often called "military Keynesianism". For the first couple of years that I wrote on this topic, commenters more or less said, "That's crazy, no one is calling for war to stimulate the economy". When allegations surfaced that Rand Corporation was lobbying the Pentagon to start a war to save the economy, Washington Post hack David Broder started promoting war as an economic panacea, and former Goldman Sachs analyst Charles Nenner and economist Marc Faber started predicting a major war, people started paying more attention. And well-known economist and writer Paul Krugman has argued for years that World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression. For example, Krugman writes today in the New York Times: But Sunday, Krugman went over-the-top by more or less calling for a major war ... and manufacturing a false justification for starting one, if need be: This statement is disturbing for two reasons. First, many economists have demonstrated that - contrary to commonly-accepted myth - war is actually bad for the economy. And the following statement by Mr. Krugman implies - whether intentional or not - the use of hanky panky to justify military spending: Doesn't Mr. Krugman know that governments from around the world have admitted that they carried out "false flag" attacks in order to justify their aims? See this and this. How can he be so irresponsible to publicly pine for all-out war based upon ginned-up reasons?
I used to take the standard leftist line that war is not good for the economy, but I acknowledge now that it can in fact have a positive ROI. Not always, but a carefully considered and chosen war (if you have that luxury) can be very good for the economy.
Like, say a nice false flag event? Also, I thought it was the "Bush wars" that was the major driver for the deficit that Obama inherited?
I think that even taking into account the higher than "normal" cost for establishing a base in Iraq, the long-term return on that will be positive. The benefits will go largely to those whose supply chains extend into the region, but in (capitalist) theory you're supposed to be buying those companies' stocks to get your share of those benefits.