QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAnd how did WW2 end the depression? Through massive government spending and intervention? If you actually follow Austrian economics, you would not think that WW2 ended the great depression. Ludwig von Mises: "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."Arguing with crash mint is like beating babies, i'll let others do that. The above I'll argue with. I hear this sermon often from the followers of the cult of Krugmanianity. People somehow think that nothing ever happens in the world except printing more money (good), or not enough money (bad). It's not ever looking into how money/efforts would be spent, it's just demanding that some government carpet bombs everyone with money, after which the world will magically transform into a better place, just like the myth of WW2 curing depression because of government investing in Drezden carpet bombing. How about WW2 changed the world? War pushed people to do things they never did before. Women didn't work before it, they started during the war all over the world and kept on. That's almost doubling of the labor force. New technologies came about or were developed -- computers, airlines, electronics, rockets, advances in radio technology, nuclear power, highways, new industrial infrastructure. People changed in other ways -- they started to make babies more. Post WW2 years is famous baby boom in the US -- in 1946 more than twenty times more babies were born than in 1943. Marriage age dropped and marriage rate skyrocketed. Change of demographics then changed future economics. All of these were effects of the war, but not of the kind that would be simply caused by arbitrary indiscriminate government spending.There is a difference between short term cyclical variation and long term growth. Things that you mention relate to long term growth. They won't explain why with the same productive capacity a country goes from 5% to 25% unemployment, or will be able to recover from a depression. We can't for instance fuck our way out of the current recession by producing more babies. Short-term, it was government spending that ended the depression by putting idle capacity to use. But I'd agree with austrians that this has in no way led to prosperity or welfare improvements. It's just bad accounting. Putting half your young capable workforce into military to fight and die is a sure way to reduce unemployment, but no one would argue that this is welfare improving. Population growth drops during wartime. Replacing male workers with unskilled inexperienced female workers will surely lead to significant drops in productivity in the short term. Sure, there are innovations in technology during wartime, but if you look at total factor productivity growth, it's almost always lower when countries are at war. This notion that during war we became more prosperous is non-sense. The long term growth impact of the war is harder to assess since we don't observe the counter-factual. But when you do comparisons you have to 1) compare to the alternative (e.g. no war) 2) the impact of the war on population growth, tech innovations, female participation on the MARGIN (e.g. what % of the increase in female participation after 1945 is due to WW2 vs. increase in clerical jobs, wider use of contraception, etc.), 3) compare to the costs of WW2 (e.g. expected production and innovations from millions who have died, massive destruction of property and productive resources, psychological, social and political impact of the war on productive capacity, etc.). So, if you look at the marginal impact of the war on tech innovations, female participation in the workforce, etc. and compare to alternatives as well as the costs, there is no way that WW2 resulted in net economic growth in the short-term or the long-term.