Why is war bad for a countries economic growth"?

Question

I Knew it but my Geography professor kept saying that it was bad etc. I guess im just going to argue him that he is wrong! I remember In us History in high school studying the 50's after WWII of how great the country was! See I have a take home test and it says..."In our lessons war was cited as being deterrent to economic growth. Why is war considered bad for economic growth?"

Answer 1

It depends on the country. If Sri Lanka had to go to war, their economy would be toast.

It also depends on the war. Civil war almost always has a negative economic impact. See ideas source link.

The economic impact of the arms race in the Cold war destroyed the soviet union.

In some cases, war has a beneficial impact on the industrial complex as it fires up to retool, innovate and staff.

New developments in communications, energy, transportation, medicine, defense, security, research, safety, aviation and deterrent are usual products of the effort.

Considering the expense in Human capital, at the military, civilian and industrial level, war is always worth avoiding in spite of the economic or developmental advantages.
History is clear that controlled investment in the military is the most productive way to avoid a war that would cost a great deal more in a chaotic, less predictable method.
Not investing in the military invites a reason to use what you didn't buy. The resulting conflict is usually longer and bloodier.

Answer 2

The main issue is the destruction of infrastructure that keeps business going, and the loss of man power that can last for a generation. The trick is to make sure you are not fighting the war on your own soil.
In the short term a war fought elsewhere is often beneficial for economic Growth. Governement spending increases pushing more money into the economy in typically rewarding areas that create jobs. Militarization of Germany in the 1930s was an economic policy as well as a defence one with the express aim being to rebuild the economy after the depression. Certainly the growth in the US economy over the past 4 years has been more related to military spending that any other Bush policy (including the tax cuts).
Also war often leads to developments that will be useful in society. Refrigeration and automobiles to a large extent grew out of WW1.
The problem comes with where the money comes from. Usually wars create large deficits in the government's budget. The government has to borrow this money and in so doing increases the demand for money, "crowding out" private sector investment and ultimately hurting the economy. Certainly we are seeing this in the US at present.
In the past this has been handled by using the spoils of war to pay for the war. Even these days Bush promised us that Iraq's oil would pay for the war.

Answer 3

Depends on the war... the old Model Like WW2 was good for the economy solely because the country was coming out of the depression, manufacturing was cheap... and lets face it.. we felt good as a nation about the mission..
the latter half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st have seen war for geopolitical position and strategic alignments...

I don't care what party you side with.. Vietnam was a disaster for the country.. as both Iraq events have been... they have proven very bad for poor and middle America while the ultra rich have flourished in all three examples. Anyone that says trickle down economics works has never lost a job to cheaper foreign labor or a loved one to a war for profit...

Answer 4

This is the first war that is really bad for the economy because we are importing everything instead of making it here. The few items that are made here do not put enough back into the economy to offset the flood of money going off shore to pay for war materials. Thank the democrats for giving up our jobs in exchange for campaign contributions and the corporate leaders that felt their profit was more important than keeping the country solid. While I'm at it the UNIONS are also to blame for the exportation of jobs by demanding unrealistic wages and benefits.

Answer 5

It’s not… Historically speaking, war has proven to be an economic stimulator. People used to pull together for a “cause”. The problem is; nobody can find a good “cause” in the wars we tend to fight today.

There is no line drawn in the sand… no boundaries – no “front line”.

We need a “just cause”… then war might be worth it again. ‘til then, we’ll let our politicians be bought by BIG OIL..

Answer 6

Well, you have to pay for a lot of "consumables" Bombs cost money and blow up, no residual value.

Like it or not, a dollar spent for war has has a larger revenue feedback than a dollar spent on welfare. A dollar spent on building a road trumps them all

Now you tell me “How is war good for a countries economic growth"?

Answer 7

Yes, unless he escalates a huge war economy by engaging Iran, then maybe he can tackle half of the deficit in four years. That's the ONLY way that that will happen.

Answer 8

Haha. You didn't like the answers you were getting so you deleted the question and rephrased it hoping you'd get what you wanted. Not going to work. Same answer.

War is generally good for an economy. War goods are needed. People are need to make those war goods. More jobs.

Learn to accept reality. Ignoring the truth in an effort to support your own agenda will get you into trouble.

Answer 9

Depends if their country is on the receiving end of the bombs. If they are, then their country and infrastructure, along with it's people are decimated. If they aren't on the receiving end, I think it actually sparks economic growth.

Answer 10

Because we are borrowing the money from China... But the economy traditionally booms post war