The saying that war pulls GDP, why war pulls the economy

I think there is a sense that the Boeing aircraft of the United States were developed because of the production of military products for the United States. However, modern warfare is more about competing for resources, and its main purpose is not to stimulate domestic demand. What do you think?

It's normal to agree with you. For example, if the United States had hit Iran this year, perhaps the recent financial crisis would not have happened.

How can military spending have a superimposed effect on stimulating the economy!

Think so. However, it is necessary to control the object and scale of the war, and if the war is lost, it will cost too much money. The opposite result is obtained.

There are five main reasons why a superpower starts a war:

1: Strengthen political deterrence.

Because it has to be said, so it is necessary to have a deterrent, a monkey king has the final say on the monkey mountain, it is not enough to rely on the title alone, it is to rely on fighting and killing all day long, and all the monkeys who dare to challenge their authority are beaten, and kill chickens to show the monkeys, so as to ensure their authority.

2: The need to plunder resources.

Why use drug trafficking and homicide as an excuse to openly kidnap the ** of a country and put it in your own prison? Because that country has a canal that connects the Pacific Ocean with the Indian Ocean. Why, without evidence, to exterminate and execute another country's people under the pretext of possession of mass destruction** and homicide?

Because Naguni is one of the world's largest oil producers...A few examples).

3: Divert the attention of the people and alleviate domestic contradictions.

When there are economic problems in the country, political scandals, and so on, we must be anxious to find an excuse to send troops to fight a war, and use grandiose reasons, such as protecting human rights, protecting the interests of our own citizens elsewhere, and so on.

4: Provide orders for arms dealers in their own countries.

The relationship between arms dealers and politicians can be described as the relationship between ants and aphids, with ants providing protection and help to aphids, and aphids providing sugar water to ants.

5: Leave a burden on political opponents.

The elder Bush (Republican) left Clinton (Democrat) a "Somali **".

Some articles refer to the United States' participation in World War II.

It has promoted the growth of GDP and accelerated the development of the economy. This is an important statement that war leads to economic growth. In fact, when we have an understanding of productivity, we will find that this logic is fundamentally wrong.

Under the state of World War II, the economic operation of the whole society is centered on the manufacturing of military weapons, so a large amount of steel will be invested in the manufacture of **, such as **, aircraft, and ammunition. These will use a lot of metal, which means that a lot of steel will be destroyed at a fairly high rate in a war. This is a huge waste of material resources for Bilu.

These metals could have been used in civilian industry, could be used to improve the lives of the public, could be used to produce automobiles, and could produce many civilian consumer goods, but due to the war, these metals were diverted to military use, and they were quickly destroyed in the war. This means that there will be a stagnation and repression of civilian industry. In the United States, during World War II, the nation's economy was regulated.

As steel is consumed by munitions, civilian industry is deprived of the necessary resources. At this time, ** stipulates, which industries can be developed and to what extent. If you want to replace the car, you can't do it, because there are not so many raw materials, so your civilian consumption power is suppressed.

Therefore, we can see that the GDP statistics of the United States during World War II were very high, and it was driven by arms, but steel was quickly consumed in the war. Although the GDP data is high in the spring, at the same time, there is a suppression and downturn in the civilian consumption industry, that is, everyone's consumption power is greatly suppressed. This is in the United States, and the conditions are not bad, because there is no direct participation in the war, but in Britain, France, Germany and other belligerent countries, there will be material control, rationing, as much as possible to reduce consumption, suppress consumption.

So in a state of war.

The economy is not prosperous, suppressed, and regulated, especially the consumer goods industry, which is greatly compressed. War itself cannot promote economic growth, because war consumes, and this consumption stems from the real savings of society as a whole. Since real savings are massively consumed, there are no resources to invest and no resources to consume, so the economy is bound to shrink and slump.

Although the GDP figure is high from the point of view of war statistics, it is bound to be a depression in the field of private consumption.

This view or conclusion generally applies only to the United States.

First of all, the United States will not set the battlefield within its own borders.

Secondly, through the war, it can be exported in large quantities, even if the war needs its own soldiers, but the war expenses can be borne by its allies under the pretext of the alliance treaty, according to the alliance treaty, one side of the war, the other side needs help, and if it is not willing to send people, then pay for it. Japan, for example.

Third, through war, the productive forces and facilities of other countries have been destroyed, and they can stably occupy both ends of the industrial chain, and in terms of international development, the pricing power of various products is in their own hands.

War can indeed drive part of the economy, but it is only the economy of some people! For example, when a lot of people are killed, the coffin shop generally does better. However, from the perspective of society as a whole, it is definitely an economic regression.

The war destroys so much that people work hard to meet basic needs, so it brings about economic take-off. But is the purpose of life to work hard to meet basic needs? And even if you work hard, you can't meet your basic needs, because there are such a group of people waiting to take away your efforts, so that you can pull the economy.

The so-called war pulls the economy, which is like someone always staring at your pocket, and when you have earned enough money, they will grab you and beat you up, and then take all the money in your pocket. Before leaving, he said to you earnestly: Young man, I am doing this for your own good, only if you have no money and your basic needs cannot be met, you will desperately find a way to earn money, and you can earn more money.

It's not even more terrifying, it's even more terrifying: when your pockets just bulge, he does it again! And it definitely won't be the last.