WWII Was Not an Economic Boon

[atinymonkey]

Well, it's microeconomics so the counterpoints may ramble somewhat. Split thread?

[Aardvark]

Just out of curiousity. Can you really find a single economist prepared to say that WW2 'saved' the US economy?

 

At the very least i think you are overstating your case.

 

PS, trumpeting a decrease in private investment seems a bit of an odd point to make in support of war being economically benefical.

[atinymonkey]

Just out of curiousity. Can you really find a single economist prepared to save that WW2 'saved' the US economy?

 

I can find thousands, and the resulting books on the process. The economic principles are part of core syllabus, abet historic.

 

 

Microeconomics means involving as many part of a process as possible, hence the decrease in private investment. Private investment mean the state doesn't make a direct profit, and industry is privatized. It's important that core industry is retained for a stable economy, or foreign investors can manipulate your economy for profit. There was a very real danger in the 1980's that the Japanese had managed this with American industry.

[Sayonara]

Well, it's microeconomics so the counterpoints may ramble somewhat. Split thread?

No, you don't get to wave them off as "rambling counterpoints". You didn't actually say anything to connect those graphs to the discussion.

 

You presented the graphs with the fairly patronising comment "Big pretty graphs, all simple and shiny", yet you made no attempt to explain when, how, why or where the data was gathered, and offered no interpretation of the information you presented. Giving and explaining data that illustrates a trend and simply giving data are two different beasts.

 

"These charts here show some data that might demonstrate whatever my point is" is all that can be concluded from your post with the link.

[Aardvark]

You say you could find thousands, just one will do.

[atinymonkey]

No' date=' you don't get to wave them off as "rambling counterpoints". You didn't actually [i']say[/i] anything to connect those graphs to the discussion.

 

You presented the graphs with the fairly patronising comment "Big pretty graphs, all simple and shiny", yet you made no attempt to explain when, how, why or where the data was gathered, and offered no interpretation of the information you presented. Giving and explaining data that illustrates a trend and simply giving data are two different beasts.

 

"These charts here show some data that might demonstrate whatever my point is" is all that can be concluded from your post with the link.

 

Jesus.

 

Rob, what I said was 'Well, it's microeconomics so the counterpoints may ramble somewhat' which seems to quite clearly indicating future tense. As in my counterpoint, not an imagined counterpoint to some none-existent points.

 

In order to fully answer your questions on the circumstances surrounding the economics effects in 1930's America I may need to go into a little bit more details than I have already hence the comment about the thread split because all this has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

 

As to the source of the graphs, you bloody well know I'm not sitting next to a library of history and economics books. I even said I'd look it up when I went home. You don't honestly expect me to believe you think I wrote the things do you? I provided what I could with the constraints of being at work, with limited time and information at my disposal. It was a brief answer to a brief question, not a thesis to be marked for references and a complete bibliography.

 

But cheers for assuming the best from me.

[Sayonara]

Rob, what I said was 'Well, it's microeconomics so the counterpoints may ramble somewhat' which seems to quite clearly indicating future tense. As in my[/b'] counterpoint, not an imagined counterpoint to some none-existent points.

My mistake. Mea culpa.

 

 

In order to fully answer your questions on the circumstances surrounding the economics effects in 1930's America I may need to go into a little bit more details than I have already hence the comment about the thread split because this all has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

What questions? I have not asked any.

 

I'll take a look back over the thread and see if the posts about WWII lend themselves to being transplanted elsewhere. Won't take a jiffy.

 

 

As to the source of the graphs, you bloody well know I'm not sitting next to a library of history and economics books. I even said I'd look it up when I went home. You don't honestly expect me to believe you think I wrote the things do you? I provided what I could with the constraints of being at work, with limited time and information at my disposal. It was a brief answer to a brief question, not a thesis to be marked for references and a complete bibliography.

If you had waited to begin with you would not now be making excuses. I suspect that had you thought you could get away with it, you would have linked to the same or similar graphs from home too, perhaps with a link to an article on the same subject.

 

It really doesn't take long to add "this is data collected by X in order to show the case for Y. As you can see the strong indication is of A, which is supported by B."

 

Anyhow, this is all rather redundant. An economic boon is a desirable or auspicious state brought about by favourable results at the ideal time. Unlike a boost, it is not necessarily temporary. Depending on one's explicit definition of "boon", the evidence presented so far could frankly be used to argue either side.

 

 

But cheers for assuming the best from me.

No offence, but you don't exactly go out of your way to make your haranguing look different to your chitter-chatter.