Typically it's not been that good economically has it? War is expensive.. in terms of money and lifes.. But it also has implications for how the country is seen worldwide.. its reputation.
Weapons makers make out like bandits though don't they Addb? And Black Water did very well for itself financially during the Bush War. I'm sure Trump would see to it that his weapons making cronies would do very well. They'd all get lucrative government contracts don'tcha know? Coa lminers? Who needs 'em when you got folks who can make bombs, right? Thank you for your reply and Happy Thursday to thee! :)
War is always bad economically - but for some unfathomable reason it seems to be good politically. Says something about the electorate that doesn't bear close scrutiny.
Just think of all the government contracts Trump will give to his bomb-making cronies. Does the government give contracts out to coal miners? They don't make coal..they just dig it out of the ground. Oh well. Time will tell. We will see. Trump already backed down. He said North Korea should stop making threats and immediately North Korea threatened to bomb Guam. Not a peep from the cowardly redhead. To be expected. Thank you for your reply Sbf and Happy Thursday! :)
Usually very good, sadly; particularly so for the victor.
First, there's all the weapons and supplies to be consumed by the actual aggression. For example DuPont made a bloody fortune from the Civil War supplying gunpowder to both the north and the south. And then there were all the aircraft companies, transport vehicle companies, armorers, etc. in WWII that made fortunes.
After the festivities wind down we find that any participating States on the loosing end have had their industrial bases decimated, but they need to rebuild. So the victors' are the only place that have industrial bases remaining to actually supply the materials and equipment needed for that rebuild. (For example, the USA, which emerged from WWII with its financial troubles freshly behind it due to that war production build up, had about the only functioning industrial base on the entire planet.)
And let's not forget all the bankers. They're licking their chops at the prospect of financing all the destruction and subsequent rebuilding.
It's a bad thing for governments, economically - Nixon smashed tge gold standard in 1971 as the US Fereal Reserve had insufficient gold to back the huge amounts being spent on the Vietnam War. Unbacked fiat currency was the only way to pay for it. The US debt has spiralled out if control largely due to profligate military spending, with wars continuing to rage in the Middle East.
US military spending was far greater during the post-Korea 1950's than during the Vietnam conflict. That was during the initial Cold War build-up.
Nixon took us off the gold standard mainly so he could screw with the value of our fiat currency which was, and continues to be the world standard. When it was tied to gold it's value was pretty well fixed but after removing it from that standard he could, through the Federal Reserve, try to mess with the values of currencies like the yuan, the rubble and the đồng in an attempt to drive economies based on those currencies onto the rocks, or so he thought. Unfortunately "the powers that be" were inept at doing that so we ended up with first moderate inflation during Ford and then skyrocketing inflation during Carter.
And as far as military spending . . . it had little to do with it. National Defense is a Constitutional mandate after all. It was ineffective. practically useless social programs that trashed the US economy long-term. We've wasted roughly the equivalent of the national debt (somewhere around 20-trillion-dollars) for absolutely no results. All that wasted money after Eisenhower was able to drive poverty down from around 15% of the population to about where it stands today during his two terms with hardly a blip in his budget.
Adaydreambeliever 