Well, the Great Depression had both the New Deal and the WWII to suffer through. Even if you support the former, you still have to admit that the later was a downer.
Hopefully, we won't have to worry about either of those for time being.
Hopefully, we won't have to worry about either of those for time being.
"The end of the depression in the U.S. is associated with the onset of the war economy of World War II, beginning around 1939."
Also from War Economy entry:
"On the supply side, it has been observed that wars sometimes have the effect of accelerating progress of technology to such an extent that an economy is greatly strengthened after the war, especially if it has avoided the war-related destruction. This was the case, for example, with the United States in World War I and World War II."
It didn't suffer through it at all, it got fixed by it.
The notion that WWII fixed the depression is the "broken window" theory writ on a grand scale.
Even if it was worse overall, it gave us an economy and nation afterward that was far better than before the Great Depression. It is, of course, impossible to say where we'd be without it today, but things like the GI Bill greatly educating the American workforce or women entering it significantly undoubtedly changed us for the better.
The ramifications of that war are so complex that we're still finding new ones, but I was just pointing out that it is generally considered the end of the Depression, and much of the reason for our following prosperity.
But I can't say that was the case, would have been the case, any more than you can say the opposite, because we don't know what would have happened if we had tweaked x or y, and can't test it. That's why economics is a social science, not a science. That's why economists are still arguing over what caused the great depression, as well as what ended it.
Very few nations ever achieve a period like America did from that point to probably about 9/11/01. If we had to make the decision again from a purely economic standpoint, given the benefit of hindsight, we'd make it the same way.
> It didn't suffer through it at all, it got fixed by it.
And now, you're attempting to declare post hoc, ergo propter hoc? The whole point of what I'm saying is that there are thousands or millions of changes in policy, technology, demographics, sentiment, which had an impact on the economy, we don't know which did what.
I could just as easily explain the post-war years by saying that it's natural that any country which does not get bombed to smithereens will experience relative prosperity, whether or not it participated in bombing other countries, as we did in WWII. Perhaps it was only that advantage which overwhelmed the tax of war spending.
Again, I can't say for sure, but neither can you. I'm inclined to think you're wrong though, from the simple perspective the the allocation of resources over time.