-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Medical Specialties | Why people buy foods with “50% Less Fat” Next »
» 85 TPS Reports
Leave a Reply
-
Latest Comments
JoeL on High on Life? No, High on… Exodiafinder687 on Re-Plotted: Problem, Flame… Exodiafinder687 on I Swear to God If You Don… Exodiafinder687 on I Swear to God If You Don… zak on So Many Countless Hours Spent … CaioNV on Proof That Women Are Evil… Starlancer on So Many Countless Hours Spent … Malkiot on So Many Countless Hours Spent … Malkiot on So Many Countless Hours Spent … meh on Replotted- Pol·i·ti·cian: A Pe… Chris on So Many Countless Hours Spent … mwah on Replotted: That’s Just… Mr. Wayne on So Many Countless Hours Spent … tehrawb on High on Life? No, High on… The Master on Replotted: That’s Just… 
Cheezburger Company Blog
Are you sure about that? …. Because I’m pretty sure we’ve been at war for several years and our economy is failing.
it’s more a reference to a big war. (WWII for example) When a country goes into an all out war, it produces new jobs for things like making weapons and military service, which helps the economy.
Oh, huh…. Well that’s hardly a lol-graph then… I’m disappointed.
That is a very general statement. When the country is in a situation where more jobs and spending are required, then their creation is beneficial. However, that is not always the case. When the economy is already producing at its potential, it hurts to create more spending and more jobs.
Actually, economists have been divided on this topic for years, even when it comes to big wars. On the one hand a large number of minimally skilled, relatively high paying jobs floods the market (getting more money to more people prompts more people to spend, which is always a good thing), but on the other your labor force is decimated and national treasuries are depleted with no investment in infrastructure, which damages most other sectors of the market and makes non-weapons investments dodgy.
No, no it doesn’t. Wartime production sucks the labor and resources out of markets that make things that last and betters people’s lives, and puts it into a sector that makes things that go boom.
War helps manufacturing and fabrication the way earthquakes help construction, and plagues help doctors. If that produced actual prosperity, why not just blow up all the cities in the country and give everyone a good dose of cancer from time to time?
The market solves problems, and in the process makes old technologies and professions obsolete. Governments prolong the problems to protect the established interests who profit from treating, but not solving, those problems.
There is some truth to the chart. When the economy is failing, the only thing that actually gives way to new growth is destruction of capital. And what is more efficient for that than war?
It makes sense, but it does have some flaws. I will admit. Yet, there are some signs things are getting better
well technically it is a military action trust me I am fighting it.
after ww2 our economy tanked as well.. it was the years between ww2 and korea that we recovered our economy.
Then can I ask why our economy was the only one to actually GROW during World War 2? I mean, we were doing pretty fine back then.
They taught me that at school…The US economy was through the roof during WWI and WWII
we hardly fought in WWI
We did, however, produce massively. That’s the key.
The US was always pretty much an arms dealer nation. The “cash and carry” plan of WW2, the “arsenal of democracy” stuff from FDR both were effectively “Hey! We want you to win, but we don’t want to get ‘involved’. So, here’s weapons, kill someone with them”. All of these weapon sales went into the government, which went, ultimately, into the economy.
Actually, that style of fighting was really smart, since the US just had to jump in and clean up the stragglers of the fighting at the end of the wars. So, a lot fewer americans died in combat than other nations’.
Sorry about the incoherence, i’m feeling all stuffy today
Yeah, this was especiallly the case with World War II after the Wall Street Crash followed the boom in the 50′s, but I don’t recall a recession before World War One, and the recession in the 80′s was actually after the Vietnam War :-S
The Long Depression of the 1870′s came before WWI.
warning: having a view on this site that doesn’t suck obama’s schlong as the savior of our economy and country may result into banishment from the site.
This is historically inaccurate, it has nothing to do with Obama. You should have learned this stuff in 9th grade social studies…
“result into banishment?”
-
Isn’t that a quote from the “all your base” video game?
An unfortunate statement, but true all the same.
Except for when it’s not….
Like now.
yep. Seriously, I’ll not get mad at someone unless they:
1. get facts horribly wrong AND religiously refuse to budge in the face of hard evidence and honest expertiese,
2. T41k 1|\| 1337, it’s stupid (the 1 key is used for to many letters!)
3. use ad hominem statements (like saying “Your gay!” all the time)
4. Spam a comment for pages and pages
5. Make stupid, general, and blanket statements or assumptions (like saying “warning: having a view on this site that doesn’t suck obama’s schlong as the savior of our economy and country may result into banishment from the site”. As far as I know, nobody has been banished, booted, kicked, blocked, etc. for not having a leftist view)
6. Troll
Hope y’all got that.
your ma’s a comment!
A more accurate cycle (taken from “the 4th turning”) is that of
Crisis
High
Awakening
Unraveling
and back again.
for instance, 1929-1945 was a crisis, 1945-1965 was a high, 1965-1985 was an awakening, and the unraveling was from 1985-2005. WE are now entering a crisis again.
Of course, this model has its flaws, such as the severe economic downturn in the 70s, but it’s just a generalized hypothesis.
This one belongs over on failblog under the title: “history fail”.
Ignorance is bliss…
Until ye repeat yer history *plunders more*
I wish there was a favorite or rating system for the COMMENTS on graphs, as you are now my hero…
This graph needs to be altered to have an arrow from “rising economy” to “George W Bush takes office”. From “GWB” have arrows pointing both to “War” and “Failing Economy”.
Wow, Bush bashing. Both original and timely! Any Clinton-sex jokes? Perhaps something about Ford being clumsy? Did you know that Nixon was secretive and vengeful? I also heard Kennedy was a womanizer. I heard U.S. Grant was a drunk.
I guess you are “informed.” Idiot.
Clinton-sex jokes are out of date, but the fact that we are suffering from what that administration did is not out of date
Also Bush has not even been out of office for a year. In your case with the calling some one an Idiot would be a pot calling the kettle black.
Yes, Grant was a drunk… and Ford was clumsy, Kennedy a womanizer, Nixon was paranoid and, yes, Clinton did bang Monica.
If any of that had been relevant to the graph, I’m sure the joke would be made.
Bush did destroy our economy and get us into a disastrous war.
Was it a fresh, new comment? No.
Was it relevant? Yes.
So STFU, because I guess you “aren’t”. Idiot.
the irony of course is that Ford was probably the most athletic president ever in office.
It hurt me to include that one. Go Wolverines!
I love comments from the past talking about Bush vs. Obama. The economy was NOT this bad when Bush was in office. Obama fails…much harder than Bush did.
I am shocked the comments went this long without a Bush basher. If it makes you feel any better I saw a magazine with a rumor (emphasis on rumor) W is now from severe Depression.
I’d comment further but I’ve read enough “you’re a tool” responses. Yes, I know I’m a tool. So what.
I still think this graph is more accurate than not, though try as I might I don’t see any humor. Is there a subliminal joke I’m missing? I mean, I am indeed a ‘tool’ and all….
“From” severe depression, or “has” severe depression?
Given what he’s done to the country, I think that him having depression is still him getting off lightly….
…it’s not a good thing to be okay with being a tool. You know that, right?
Oh stop whining. I am sorry that your comments have been trolled in the past, but kindly don’t make yourself a martyr, it’s just annoying.
And, the best humor always has truth in it. But, not all truth has humor in it. If you don;t see any humor, sorry to hear that. It’s not especially funny anyway.
Go to lolcats, that will make you feel better! (they’re cute
)
Your comment and name do not agree.
Hooray! “informed” has a great grasp of our economy.
Yea, your right, I mean look at world war two!
Of course, World War One, The Civil War, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, The second Iraq, you know they all prove the theory wron, plus most of the above were started by the US, while WW2 was started by Hitler…
technically WW2 was not solely Hitler’s fault or directly resulting from his actions alone. it could even be argued that WW2 was a result of the crap dealings of the ToV or any number of reasons. not to say that hitler or more correctly the Nazis did not play a huge part.
I’d say the biggest causes of WW2 were in fact the depression, the high tariffs, and especially the failure of the League of Nations. Why Wilson didn’t get his head into gear and join the League, I’ll never understand.
The depression and tariffs were important because they epicly bashed Germany to goo. People got mad, and Hitler used that anger to ride into political power.
Curiously enough, Hitler actually did everything that he promised his constituents. Now, I am most definitely NOT supporting or condoning his evil genocide, just stating facts.
Good evening, Wilson did want to join the League of Nations. (the 14 Points speech, and all that.) The Senate never ratified the treaty. And as for Hitler giving his constituents what he promised, he promised Germany a “Fortress Europe” that would last a thousand years. Cherry-picking facts about history and getting Wilson completely wrong about the League of Nations is hardly “just stating facts.”
The US did NOT start WW1, moron
World War 1 as far as I know was not started by the US (as with WW2, we got involved later on). Also, the results of US-negotiated treaties did indeed contribute to the conditions that started WW2 — especially on the Asian front (where we essentially gave the Japanese the beachhead to start their invasion of China).
The Civil War was started in the US because it was a CIVIL WAR.
The UNITED STATES Civil War.
WWI was started by many countries (damned mutual-defense treaties) – but the US didn’t even enter into the war until the final year of it.
The Civil War was started by the Confederates attacking Union forces at Ft. Sumpter in Charleston, SC… and they had already seceded from the United States, so technically the United States did not start that war.
Vietnam had been going on for years before the United States got into it – North Vietnamese communists had attacked the South Vietnamese – we came to their defense.
Korea was kind of in the same boat – North Korea began attacking South Korea very shortly after WW2 due to a very disrupted and weakened southeast Asia and pressure from an expansionist China under Mao.
The first Iraq war was us coming to the defense of an invaded Kuwait. We did not start this war, either.
The second Iraq war WAS started by us, hey, looks like you got one right.
In other words… learn your history and quit blaming America first.
“The second Iraq war WAS started by us, hey, looks like you got one right. ”
At the group psychological level, the second Iraq was “sold” to the US population as a response to being attacked on 9/11. Stupid, I know.
Keith Henson
Time for invading anodder country, hm?
No, were on the arrow going to rising economy. Note: RISING. not ALREADY HIGH. If we were to up and invade somewhere, we would bootstrap ourselves to the arrow going to “failing economy”. FAILING, not FAILED.
This isn’t just US history, it world history in general.
The secret to the graph is that is has to be a war started by another country, I guess. The ones we enter because we are bored or nosy don’t count.
Huh, that doesn’t leave much at all, does it.
im guessing a republican came up with this graph. just because it happened to work after the depression doesnt mean it always works. look how the economy is doing now and if im not mistaken we were just in a war…so according to this graph were actually going backwards.
still in a war, idiot. Pay attention
Then pertaining to now, this graph is backwards. We had a surplus in the 90s before the war then the war started and now we’re in a recession.
no we’re in a contingency. obama said so
This is so wrong… it’s hilarious… Whoever made this is full blown retarded.
No kidding. You would think they would just hand out fliers with this on it to congress or something.
Actually if you look at history. Most Wars are not fought after recession…it actually comes as countries are coming out of a recesion and there is a since of impowerment of the people. Most wars meaning not just America. If you look at Nazi Germany, they were in a recession but were put to work making tanks and war machines, that was bring them out of recession and then enter Hitler with a message of hope and peace then War. Look at all the revolutions around the world tend not to be while the economy and people are in a depressed state but actually on an up swing. America is different because we ultimatly want and have freedom. our wars come not from a desire for revolution but to free ourselves from the threat of tarany (and not the Bush tarany, if you honestly believe that BS go live in the Sudan for a month). And history time and time shows “War” then comes “peace”. and since by defenition an individual is always at some point at war the point is proven and if you dont think so….don’t lock your front door tonight because if you do you are fighting a war against criminals wanting to still your junk.
Iraq really isn’t a “war” most people alive today aren’t old enough to have really experienced what a war really is. If you’re a woman, try working in a munitions factory or something 10 hours a day so you can keep your husband well supplied for the good ol’ war he’s fighting (or maybe even vice versa nowadays) like it was in WWII. America has yet to fight a real war in over 60 years
I’d like to see you tell a widow or a mother who’s lost her son in Iraq or Afghanistan than we’re not in a “real war.”
Same as if someone gets shot in the street here mate, always the mothers grievance. I find it a little sick you had to use that “example” when im referring to a whole national effort.
kdawg is just reminding you that just because it’s not a war in a traditional light that it’s still a war. Soldiers are dying. I’m sure if you talk to the people shooting at and blowing up US soldiers, they’d tell you it’s a war too.
Actually, while WWII did affect everyone in the country a LOT more than this one does (of course, not saying that this one doesn’t affect non-soldiers), it was really kind of unique in that sense. It was only because of where we as a world were, in relation to the industrial revolution and such, that industry at home was such a big deal. The war has always been won by the side with the most resources or best technology, and in WWII that translated into industry on the “homefront.”
(On a side note, that kind of lead to an idea that it’s okay to bomb the citizens of the country, because they are the ones making the armies possible with their industry)
If you look farther back throughout history, the armies were always “away at war,” and wouldn’t come back for years and years, but they were very disconnected from the home, simply on account that the world wasn’t as well connected as it is now. Heck, even a letter had a hard time making it to or from the battlefronts.
So we’ve kind of just come full circle. Now, instead of being disconnected because of our lack of speedy communication, etc., we are disconnected because of our SOOO well established industry.
They’re disconnected because 18-20 year olds shouldn’t be killing. They should be doing what all 18-20 year olds are meant to do- learn, get laid, smoke, sneak drinks, and being young.
graphfail. yes, war helps failing economies. but history has shown it is more than possible to skip the war step and go from failing economy to rising economy.
So, when Hitler’s leadership helped Germany’s economy take a turn for the better before the war, was that a mix-up? Because I’m pretty sure WWII wasn’t peace.
The chart is backwards, wars always follow rising economy.
This is so true.
Spanish American War – Rising economy
Afterwards – Recession
WWI – Rising Economy
After – Recession
WWII – Rising Economy
After – Recession
Korea – Rise
AFter – Fall
Vietnam – Rise
After – Fall
Six-Day War – Rise
Afterward – Embargo from Arabs down economy and United States covers up the USS Liberty incident (attack on a US vessel from Israeli Jets and Boats)
9/11 – Middle East War – Rise (gold prices skyrocket after 9/11 and oil is secured in foreign territories)
Afterward – NOW
You forgot the Operation Desert Fox, silly. But it fits the pattern. Albeit barely.
War stimulates select sectors of an economy, but in the long run, it has a negative impact.
So yes, to echo what everyone else is saying, the arrows are backward, generally speaking. That’s particularly true of recent history.
RISING, not ALREADY HIGH. Wars always take money from social programs and put it into “defense” spending. So, the economy tanks. Then, the war ends, defense spending shrinks, money into education, roads etc, and economy rises. note the tenses!!! those arrows can be verrrry long, sometimes.
oh come on ppl it’s a joke and like most jokes doesnt bear well to close scrutiny, just laugh and hit the next button
What about stuff that’s “funny because it’s true”?
That is so true. The war in Iraq has done marvelous things for our economy.
Oh wait.
Uh, so would NOW be an exception?
Though there is a coupling of economics to wars, economists are not likely to see it. You need a background in evolutionary psychology.
Wars seem to have been close to constant in the past and are an evolved human behavioral trait. That means that genes for this behavior did better in the past in humans who engaged in wars than those who did not.
But war is not something humans, especially hunter gatherer humans, could do all the time. It makes no sense from the gene’s viewpoint to fight (risking genes) unless the consequence of not fighting are worse.
Here is where economics comes in. Humans groups anticipating or actually in a declining economy (measured in income per capita, or game and berries before farming) become sensitive to xenophobic memes. The memes bias them toward starting a war.
Some years ago, when I was working this out from evolutionary psychology first principles, I could not account for the US Civil war by the economy at the time. However, there was widespread (and correct) belief that slavery was near the end. The Southern economy was so dependent on slavery that it could be said the South took a hundred years to recover.
In applying economics to wars, economists should consider who started the war in question and look at economic expectations on the starting side as much as actual conditions.
There is a non economic mode for wars as well, being attacked, or believing your group has been attacked. Does this sound familiar? The other factor out of our past is that wars make people, including leaders, irrational. You need to understand inclusive fitness for this one.
In wars the “interests” of a fighters genes (spread out among his tribal relatives) are in conflict with his personal interest of not being killed. Genes win by inducing irrational behavior. No wonder we can look back and see war behaviors were so stupid!
I developed this in a paper published a few years ago in “Mankind Quarterly.” There is a slightly longer and non reviewed version on the net. Google for “evolutionary psychology, memes and the origin of war.”
Keith Henson
The arrows really should go the other way
fail. it’s not a graph nor is it correct. :C
The U.S. Is sort of crazy when it comes to economics, most countrys do terrible after wars, it drains all of their money.
But for the U.S. it stimulates jobs and somehow gains money out of it. Probably witchcraft…
1. The United States economy was a shambles after the Civil War – that’s why the period of time afterwards was called “The Reconstruction Era” – the entire south had to be rebuilt.
2. The current recession is due to the misuse of the “gaussian cupola function” as it relates to the ranking of bond and stock performance for the issuance of a AAA credit rating, with a subsequent uncontrolled raiding of both the housing market and oil futures market.
3. Argue with me if you want, but you’re just arguing with the professors who gave me an ‘A’ on the History of the Civil War Research Paper, and the Advanced Economic Analysis “Downturn of 2008″ research paper I did.
4. I didn’t check the “notify me of follow-up comments” box.
There are reasons to be skeptical of both the facts and the analyses behind the assertion that “war is good for the economy”, and related things that (some) economics professors and (some) politicians and (some) journalists are certain are true.
Was the economy doing well during WW 2? A lot of people were working who hadn’t been, but a lot of that work went into building things for a government which a government then destroyed. If it had been the same government, most people would think that perhaps that was not “good for the economy”.
Suppose the federal government paid people to build houses or cars or railroads or whatever and paid other people to destroy them? That wold have increased GDP, but would it have been “good for the economy”?
Ah, but even though those people did not on net balance accomplish anything and might as well have done nothing except deposit their paychecks, they did spend money on things, which did help the economy, right? The Keynesian/neo-Keynesian “multiplier effect”, which is used to justify all sorts of government spending and handouts.
Well, that only works if the multiplier is greater than 1. It’s a damn hard number to figure out, even after the fact, and perhaps varies a whole bunch over time. Which tends to make one wonder if there actually *is* a “multiplier effect”. It seems to be more elusive than phlogiston, and the Freudian mind components.
An alternate explanation for what increase in economic activity that remains after you subtract off the production and employment that went into the build-it-and-destroy-it activity is “regime uncertainty”. When FDR got distracted by the rude activities in Europe and Asia and the Atlantic and Pacific of other heads of state, he wasn’t spending so much time “fixing” the economy. (If an 18th century patient’s doctor takes up heavy drinking, he might ease up on the bleeding him and arsenic powder, and the patient’s condition would improve due to the neglect.)
This isn’t just speculation based on anecdotes, there’s evidence to support it.
And one implicit assumption deserves some thought: GDP and “the economy” are the same thing.
A bunch of podcasts at http://www.econtalk.org address the above. In particular:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/ramey_on_stimul.html
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/09/garett_jones_on_1.html
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/01/fazzari_on_stim.html
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/08/kennedy_on_the.html
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/07/taylor_on_the_s.html
And there are a pair of rap videos, for those like that sort of thing, and some who normally don’t.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/05/papola_on_the_k.html
http://econstories.tv/category/videos/
http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/
But maybe you prefer … pirates!
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/leeson_on_pirat.html