WW2 could not get the USA out of the depression

https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/warprosperity?e=2ede177d11 Herr’s why anyone who claims that government spending got the USA out of the great depression, is talking out of their hiny. Government spending was supposed to stimulate civillian spending, right? In the war, 291,557 American consumers got killed. Killed consumers can not perform their namesake task, so ×pop× says the myth. Interestingly, the day I read Tom Woods’s email that trigggered this post, apparently many people looked up how many WW2 casualties there were, because I typed “How many American” into the search bar and autocomplete ofered the suggestion “soldiers were killed in WW2?”

The power of socialism

Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 (pardon: he ordered the invasion from inside his luxury Alpine residence).
Due to destruction of the economy (a.o. unavailability of resources), he had already lost the war by 1941. Thanks to his refusal to accept reality, he managed to drag it out for another 3 years. Don’t say socialism isn’t good for anything, it can magically stretch out a lost war to for over 2* as long as it really lasts.
And apparrently Hitler thought his army could magically keep on fighting to defend his city of Berlin, in spite of not having any fertile land to grow food on (that was outside the city limits, in allied hands), or to mine lead for bullets, or to acquire gun powder – again, for the bullets. When the allies were at the borders of Germany, he might have been able to make his army continue fighting, however when his army had retreated back to the city limits of Berlin, if he’d had any sense of reality/decency left on him, he would have ordered the surrender.

His 1000-year empire started in ’39 and officially ended in ’45, though he had been in power for twelve years, at the time of his cowardly suicide. And, as said, the war was lost after 2.

Why war doesn’t help the economy

Investments, not spending help the economy. Not investments in better ways to destroy human beings and stuff in general (research or prodution), so the argument for the military-industrial complex is out the window. They are all a part of war, which is destruction (the opposite of production). One can only invest in production; a process which increases the existence of stuff (the amount of existing stuff).

Wanna help the economy? Buy a screwdriver (with screws, obviously), then screw together some planks of wood and sell those as furniture.

Violence is a bad source of social services

China notoriously decided to implement a one-child policy, resulting in many girls being killed at birth (were they the lucky ones?), because sons were better able to provide for their aging parrents. This means that the new generation of Chinese is socially frustrated, and the population will shrink strongly, generation after generation. Chinese retirement homes will be filled with elderly virgin men.
In so far as they will stay in China, many will try their marital chances in other countries, causing big financial problems for the glorious worker’s paradise. Because the tax base will stop paying the elaborate social services for the elderly

So not only Europe will end up starving the working generation, causing them to flee to, erm, I have no idea, where to because the USA is also going to die financially due to their unfunded liabilities.
So: wanna get rich? Found retirement homes in Africa and Asia. Entire continents of elderly will want to live there. Call the chain of homes “New Florida inc”.

Mass immigration and politicians sacrificing people

Mass immigration is all about trying to dodge the demographic implosion of the wellfare system. Since it is politically impopular to shrink the wellfare state, they actively import (on an industrial scale) immigrants, that now form a drain on the tax payer. So do not contribute to the tax base (out of which the wellfare industry is funded). And they age at the same speed as the native tax-victim, so when push comes to shove,the wellfare state will implode with an even bigger boom. Bloody politicians, happy to sacrifice the people’s interests (a livable level of wealth) for their own petty pleasures (being in delightful power).

The dead-end of immigration policy

The welfare state that is Europe, is coming to a grinding, demographic halt. This has been known for a long time, but the scoundrels tried to avoid having to break it to the electorate, by stimulating mass-immigration.
Assuming they imported only (or mainly) people that could contribute to the income-tax-pool, this would not solve the problem, but only shift it to a future generation of politicians / citizens.

Of course, they imported heaps of people that got on the dole. And if anyone complained about that, they were chastised for being despicable racists. They did not contribute to the tax-pool, but only withdrew from it.
The demographic collapse is coming, and it’s only coming dlow enough to let the current generation of politicians get away with it.

Why Economists Never Took Marx Seriously

Ep. 1521 Why Economists Never Took Marx Seriously


What does this episode’s title say about Richard Wolf?
(based upon one utube clip I’ve seen of him, I personally don’t rank him very highly; he only ever got around to saying that he found Marx to make a lot of sense, without clarifying what it was about Capital he found to make a lot of sense; most of the time he was just your run-off-the-mill paranoid lefty: Marx was not mentioned in economics-classes)