IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Possibly not this time
Issue being: we already *have* a butt-load of planes, tanks, etc. needed to fight this war. This means no new jobs to fund the massive production required for WWI or II.

Admittedly, this is only a part of wartime economics.
That's her, officer! That's the woman that programmed me for evil!
New That's your problem with never fighting your wars at home
A large part of the revitalization of economies by war comes from all the rebuilding you have to do *after* them. (This also has the advantage of leaving you with a nice and shiny new modern infrastructure; viz Germany and Japan after WWII, compared to, say, Great Britain and France (which had seen a lot less destruction of their property)).

But, hey, if you'll forgive me for looking at it crassly for a moment: The demand for high-rise office space in NYC just shot up significantly. That ought to bring some stimulation for the building industry in the North-East... And according to standard "Multiplier" theory, it ought to spread from there to the general economy.
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
     Now that the US will spend 40? Billion; Effect on economy? - (brettj) - (10)
         Bad, especially in the long run. - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
             Waste of money, yes. But the side effects. - (marlowe)
             Two possibilities - (Arkadiy)
             Not so complex, no more a waste than many other things - (CRConrad)
         Re: Now that the US will spend 40? Billion; Effect on econom - (gtall) - (1)
             Multiplier effect, directed activity - (kmself)
         Wars seem to always be good for an economy - (wharris2) - (2)
             Possibly not this time - (tseliot) - (1)
                 That's your problem with never fighting your wars at home - (CRConrad)
         Not good - (JayMehaffey)

Where's my rapid fire?
51 ms