Is the USAs economy totally dependant on war? Many economic analysts and Historians think so.

This breif timeline explains that the USA is forced to enter a war once every fifteen years or so in order to sustain its economy.

1941 - USA enters WW2

1950 - USA enters Korean War

1965 - 1978 - USA enters Vietnam*

1990 - USA enters Gulf War**

2003 - USA enters War with Iraq

Since the wall street crash, the USA (as this time line clearly shows) has entered a war once every fifteen years or so. After the Wall street crash, the vast majority of historians claim the USA would never have got back on its feet without the Second world war.

WW2



War = Employment.



Why did WW2 hurt Europe economically after the Wall Street Crash?

In my opinion, WW2 benefited the USAs economy because they entered into the war at the ideal time - early enougth for the economic boost they desperatley needed, and late enougth to avoid completley draining them, as the War did to European countries.

Is the current Iraq war benefitting the USA economically?

Oil and its relation to the war

Does this idea propose an entirely differnt explanation for the USAs involvment in international warfare since the stock market fell?

Discuss.

*This war is the only one that lasted long enougth to bridge the gaap between two wars.
**USA leads Coalition of 30 nations

No, it doesn't. While we do produce a whole of other stuff not to mention the financial sector, without War we'd probably be a whole lot like Canada or Australia -comfortable and prosperous countries but not (like the US) UNQUESTIONED MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE *evil laughter*

Anyway, yes its called the Military-Industrial Complex -tis vast and very powerful.

Indeed - Thats why I was sure to specify that I was talking about the United States economy, not a global economy. Plus, you are right, the USA is unique in that which it has vast amounts of resources and a population adequate enougth to develop those resources through interior trading.

Just to clarify - The time line (with the exception of Vietnam) only applies to the date they entered the war. Theoretically during a war where you win your spending decreases over time towards the end of the war. The vietnam war does not apply to this as the USA did not win said war, and as such (theoretically, of course) there would be no decrease in spending - And if there was, it would be a lot less significant throughout.

The economic boom for the USA came after WW2, when its chief competitors that were other industrialized nations had been mostly decimated.

Actually the original economic boom came prior to WW2 just before the Wall Street Crash. We're actually discussing the economic regeneration of the USA prior to the Wall street crash.

War, especially in the short term, is detrimental to the overall state of the economy.

You have to consider the opportunity cost of spending those billions on the military. Instead of going to war, that money could be invested domestically in healthcare, education or infrastructure for example to increase the overall standard of living and growth potential of an economy.

Of course there are more factors at play then just economic ones when deciding to go to war, but from an economic perspective, it’s not a good policy for sustainable economic growth.

Here’s a good article on it.

Interesting.

That article is very long and right now its about half past zero in the morning, but I'll read the rest of it tomorrow.

Thanks.