WW-1 Prosperity?

By -
"War prosperity" is an odd, but enduring myth. Wars destroy some men and material; and, they divert others from making "butter" to making "guns". Nevertheless, one hears people say things like: "spending lots of money fighting Hitler, brought the U.S. out of depression"(1). Here's a brief look at the FIRST world-war.

The pro-War case: U.S. production did boom during World War-I. When the war ended in 1918, American production volume was about 25% higher than it had been in 1914. In 1914, the U.S. was a debtor country; by 1918, the positions were reversed: the world  owed money to the U.S.

Detailed WW-I timeline: Actually, the U.S. did not enter WW-I in 1914. At first, the U.S. was at peace, while producing and exporting to the warring nations. Only in 1917 did the U.S. declare war. Armistice Day was less than 2 years later, in 1918.

Peace prosperity: Consider the top-most black line in this diagram. It is an index of Production volume(2).  When we examine WW-I more closely, we find that the so called "war prosperity" was actually a "peace prosperity".

Production volume boomed from 1914 to 1917. During this period, Europe looked to the U.S. for production. They sold a lot of their investments in the U.S., in order to buy U.S. goods; they sent large volumes of gold to the U.S.; and, added to this, the U.S. government lent money to European nations. In the U.S., commodity prices rose, and wages followed about a year later. Nevertheless, real production volumes rose too. Then, in 1917, the U.S. entered the war. Look at how things flattened out after that.

Europe: By the logic of the "war prosperity" argument, we would expect Europe to do better than the U.S.. After all, they fought longer. They spent a lot too. At a time when the U.S. national product was about $50 billion, economist Brad de Long estimates(3) that the wartime accumulated budgets of all combatants was $200 billion: four times the entire US national product. WW-I devastated Europe, in terms of lives, an estimated $40 billion in property damage, and lost production of $65 billion. It was the U.S. -- thanks to its "peace prosperity" that helped Europe after WW-I.


Notes:

1. I don't claim that serious, professional economists think war is good for the economy; but I have heard this from non-economists.
2. "Economics and the Public Welfare" - Benjamin M. Anderson
3. "Economic History of the Twentieth Century" - Bradford DeLong




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Shares of World GDP

By -
Image
Here's a chart of world GDP, broken down by country share. ( HT: Carpe Diem ). Careful with the x-axis, it is not at all to scale! The basic idea is that India and China had large shares pre-industrial revolution, after which Europe rose. The U.S. shoots up, to over 40% of world GDP by 1950. Then, Japan begins to grow in the 1960s, and China in the 1980s. Suppose countries end up with GDPs proportionate to their populations. What would that picture look like? I've added a bar to the right, showing the break-down of world-population. Look at the U.S. squished down, with less that 400 million out of a world population of over 7,000 million. The biggest change is in the previously un-noticed 'rest of the world". If Africa, the Middle East and so on moved toward freedom, that could be the story of the century.  What if they do not? Here's a chart with a new assumption. Suppose the "rest-of-world" does not increase its relative s
Read more

von Mises on the Quantity Theory of Money

By -
Reading von Mises a while ago, I was surprised to see him speak against the Quantity theory of Money, but what he said made a lot of sense. A recent Facebook comment sent me back looking for the source, and I decided to blog a few choice quotes, because others may find it interesting. My summary of von Mises's position is as follows: The supply of money is an important factor in its value. This is the element of truth in the Quantity Theory However demand for money is the other factor. The quantity theory gives short shrift to demand for money. (One must look to individual decision-making processes and their objective context to understand the demand for money. One cannot start with the aggregate demand for money.) Even if supply were the only factor, it is wrong to assume the value of money will change in direct proportion to the change in supply It is also wrong to assume that an increase in supply of money changes all prices generally and similarly A good theory o
Read more

U.S. Economy: Federal Debt- How big is it?

By -
Image
( Updated: Dec 2012 ) Lots of numbers:  Trying to get a clear picture of U.S. government debt can be frustrating. The government owes: 60% of GDP : bonds owed to private entities , both foreign and domestic 100% of GDP : if we add bonds owed to the government-itself (e.g. Social Security "trust fund", Federal Reserve) 400%+ : if all Fed promises to social security and medicare recipients are met (they won't be) [Note: the GAO claims that adding another 2% (of payroll) to the current 13% payroll tax would keep social security funded for more than 70 years!] A snapshot: The U.S. government (officially) owes about US $16 trillion to the public, plus to the Fed, plus to the "trust funds".  The GDP of the U.S. is approximately $16 trillion. (Both these were about $15 Tr. last year.) To put this in perspective:  adding up the assets of everyone in the U.S. and subtracting liabilities, we get a "net worth" that adds up to about $ 64 trillion ($5
Read more