Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProAm | Hacker News Reader

It helps that we've been at war for ~17 years straight and are still largely quantitatively easing things.

We've been in armed conflict somewhere or another for over a century straight

Wars don't tend to grow economies, and QE stopped in 2014.

QE stopped in 15, but the balance sheets were still full of them until the end of last year, we are just starting to get out of the effects of QE and to see how things will really look over the next few years [q] And war is very profitable and keeps money circulating, may not grow and economy but it will sure stabilize it while there are people to kill and things to break.

[q] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/24/the-fed-launched-qe-nine-yea...

That article does not state QE purchases were made in 2015.

QE "Purchases were halted on 29 October 2014" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#US_QE1,_QE...

Tell me again how WWII didn't end the Depression because of the massive demand for workers and the associated economic activity they generated?

Confused...

Cherry picking one case where one economy entered a war in a depression and exited out of a depression ignores all the other cases where wars made a country poorer.

Tell me again how WWII helped all the various economies involved and was not a net loss to the majority of them?

Confused...

They do if you win, and don't fight the war on your own soil.

Not even necessarily then. Wars divert resources such as metals, chemicals, food, to be consumed overseas instead of in better economic activity. The US has been in wars for decades, adding trillions to the current debt and trillions more to future liability. Those trillions spent on infrastructure, science, education, etc., would have had a far better effect on the lives of people in the US than spending it on wars.

Think of the amount - trillions already spent on war. And trillions more in debt because of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com