Does War Make Us Richer? | Economics Explained 

Thanks for watching EE nation! ❤️ If you enjoyed, please consider supporting the show on Patreon! 😎 See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more! ➡️ www.patreon.com/EconomicsExplained

As a swiss I have to add that war *IS* good for the economy, as long as you are not the one fighting it.

Last time I was this early the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program was on budget.

Every time you hear "it's good for the economy" I think we should always wonder whose economy we are talking about.

In a time when RU-vidrs chase trends and prioritize monetization, I would to like to express my respect to you for choosing genuinely interesting topics, even when they straddle the thin line of RU-vid demonetization. I applaud you sir. Great video, keep up the good work!

"Military is giant form of welfare" Consul Gaius Marius likes that comment.

I'm not sure where this quote comes from, but I've heard something to the effect of; "In a fight between two, the winner is the third." That's pretty much what happened with the US economy by the end of the war. It wasn't great for the US, but everywhere else suffered much more so the US became a super power in the post war world, a status it used to draw more power and establish the hegemony we live in now.

EE on march: did a global pandemic affect economy? EE on april: did a war affect economy? EE on may(?): did apocalypse affect economy?

Sun Tzu - There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare. USA - I accept your challenge!

How many wars are you planning to have? US: yes

In the words of anyone that got richer through war: "Less talking, more raiding!"

I think this misses some major points. Throughout most of human history, warfare was extraordinarily lucrative. Victory on the battlefield was a major source of raw material, capital, land and cheap manpower. In the modern age, military hardware is exceedingly expensive. Moreover, a great deal of wealth is formed of intangible assets which cannot be seized through martial means. War is simply not a profitable prospect in the current era. However, that is not to say that warfare could not become lucrative again, if our conditions radically alter. We are living in a uniquely peaceful period and it would be naïve to think that this will continue in perpetuity.

"War is good for economy if you are seller of war related goods and equipments." - #UncleSam

Senator Armstrong: "HELL YES"

8:43 Historically military jobs did add value to an economy (in certain situations). The specific example I'm thinking of was with the British Royal Navy from about the time of the Tudors onwards to the end of world war 2. The more sailors they RN (and it's independent contractors, aka privateers) had, the more ships it could sail, the more Spanish treasure ships and ports they could raid, the more money was circulated in the economy, the more need for overseas bases to expand their raids was needed, required the establishment of anchorages, which turned into colonies that started producing commodities like sugar and tobacco (that became more profitable than the raiding and priacy), which needed more sailors to protect their own trade ships from pirates and privateers, and those trader sailing the trade ships wanted to expand their opportunities to trade, so the navy needed to protect them further a field and overawe some of the locals with demonstrations of fire power, which lead to more bases and more colonies, The British military became a service for the insuring the safety of British business overseas and a means of expanding through the overt threat of fire power. In much the same way that was what determined why the Americans were the leading western allied power at the end of world war 2, they had the most military power to shape a geopolitical position that was favourable to themselves and they could use that to ensure their alliance (which would become NATO) had free reign to trade as much as they wanted across the oceans as the US Navy ensured their safety across the ocean. This protection for trade was damn near a bribe to those countries to act as the front line in any world war 3 scenario against the USSR (to contain a potential threat to the US).

12:03 ah yes, i almost forgot america conquered the entirety of southern canada

The American economy did well post war as it had everyone's gold*, the only industrial country without bombed out factories and a huge global post war need for what it could sell. On top of the huge investment in modern infrastructure that facilitated further growth and improved efficiency.

1:35 Those wires though, that disorganization hurt

Bro I have no idea how the hell are you only still at 333k subscribers when you churn out such high quality content at such regular basis. God damn I salute you bro. Please keep the contents coming

Dude the level of video synchronisation to the subject matter is on another level. It's like you have a video clip for every half a sentence lol. I dunno if I love it or just begrudgingly respect the hustle. The content is outstanding as always, keep it up.

"the sinews of war are infinite money" -Marcus Tullius Cicero

Last time i was this early, Germany was almost in Moscow

"War is good for business" -Ferengi Rules of Acquisition

"WAR" "HUH!!!!" "YEAH" "WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR" "EMPLOYING SOME PEOPLE AND FUNDING BIG GOVERNMENT PROJECTS THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT LEAD INTO USEFUL TECHNOLOGY BUT THE MONEY COULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN SPENT BETTER doing this in a way that didn't sacrifice human life, perhaps funding projects between private actors and universities" "UH HAA HAAA HUH" "SAY IT AGAIN Y'ALL"

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Last time I was this early Hannibal routed the Romans with a pincer maneuver with his calvary

Sundowner: "GIVE WAR A CHANCE!"

Fantastic Video! Some of the greatest pragmatic economic insight I've ever received. If only economic professors could think like this when explaining and teaching how economies work!

Ah yes, Rule 34 of acquisition: War is good for business.

In the wise words of Bo Burnham, “War! What is it good for? Increasing domestic manufacturing.”

I think you're missing one of the key aspects of the military technology research. It's government funded, so the resulting technology is more freely available to be exploited by the economy. Private research tends to be kept from general use. Wars also push technology. Yes, it's first case is to win the war, but once a concept is proven then it can be used in other areas. And yes, it would be better if that money could be spent directly on R+D, then the results given away as public goods. But it's more politically acceptable to spend on defense.

Amazing content! Thank you for taking the time really explore economics and the backbone of our modern existence, please keep up the great work!

I keep thinking back to the old joke about stimulating the economy by hiring half the population to dig holes and drop money in, then hire the other half to dig the money back up. You stimulate the economy, but don't actually produce anything. Military spending is kinda like that, so much of the money just goes into a black hole of disposable items that serve little purpose beyond being expensive to produce.

I honestly love this channel. Keeps me sharp and informed!

Great video! I like how made sure to cover all the counterarguments. I had never heard the "war drives innovation" argument for war.

This channel has the best usage of stock footage I have ever seen.

This one reminded me of "if every worker was staffed in an army or fleet, we'd have full employment and nothing to eat" (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GTQnarzmTOc.html)

Do a "Was slavery good for the economy?"

honestly fantastic video and super underrated channel. keep on going brother :)

Hearing that hearts of iron soundtrack reminds how well war improved the economy of the nations I play there...

The beggining intro soundtrack makes me feel... *PaTRioTic* as much as a *Tsar bomb!* - Thank you EE; very cool !

10:50 I agree with the general point here but it's really important what you consider innovation. Our current society is spending vast amounts of resources on producing essentially useless goods. Like another competing mail app, another competing social media platform or a 700$ sold-at-loss juice squeezer. All just slightly better, but maybe not even that. These fit under the optimistic view of innovation that you see many take. But these are ultimately very small steps. Even though spending is higher (as you've asserted) you've got more wasted effort because the purpose of that competition is usually to eliminate your opposition or to just win over your competition. The consumer doesn't require a step that's on a scale where it'd significantly improve mankind to actually change who they buy from. Just good enough, which means that every company reaches for all the easy to reach steps instead of finding a way to jump forward. When I've argued with people who think war is good for technological advancement they usually don't point to these trivial innovations you include here. They point to the big advancements you saw during the cold war like advanced material science and basically the countless advantages we now have due to the space race. And when addressing that it's obvious that usually people in peacetime don't try for these ambitious projects. Governments (see: voters) aren't willing to spend. Companies have too much short term focus because they'll likely die otherwise. Even those we consider ambitious companies like Tesla don't really make the large innovations you saw during the cold war. Reusable rockets are of course a strong step. It's far greater than most companies I can think of. But even so it's just one company. In that sense a "slightly better fighter jet" can still be much better money spent because it did something substantial most likely. Even if its target isn't aligned with improving things for people. But undeniably the cost of war or even just international disunity is a large enough cost that it doesn't make sense to strive for that over the status quo. There needs to be a way to generate interest for this kind of project organically because they're so much more important. Now it's not necessarily the case that external pressures like you had in the cold war was the primary reason we see less of what I'd consider genuine innovation now. It's very possible that the resources that are spent just don't reach as far because the problems are harder. Either way I think the first step to solving this (if it is a problem) is to try and measure. Something like where theoretical physics is at in contrast to leading tech in relevant areas would be a measure. edit:formatting

Mate youre a great teacher really got me engaged. Mightve done better in my eco a level id i discovered you a few years back. Keep up the good work

How about the black market economy, which actually thrives during war and conflict?

Military spending can effect stability and in that way could be considered to be a benefit to the civil economy. If your military is weak compared to your enemies you are likely to be attacked and people wont want to spend.

I have always said that the post war prosperity of the US was due to other countries having lost their factories and infrastructure in the war. It feels good to have someone finally acknowledge this.

Does “trading”, rather than fundamental investing, such as day trading contribute to society other than moving money from trader to trader in a zero-sum game? Is the argument that it provides needed liquidity to markets reasonable?

Last time I was this early, I can still go out freely.

In the words of Sundowner: "mo' wars, mo' money"

When I’m idle your videos help me get my mind in gear regardless of my class units.

Very well thought and researched video!

"GDP is a mistake itself" - Economics Explained, 2020

A wise man once said "If you cant make money during a war, you just plain cant make money."

I love your statement that the point of the economy is to provide value to consumers. Everything must be viewed through that lens, and then the way forward becomes clear.

i love this series i binge watch!

12:02 thanks for extending the border further north Economics Explained, I really like Vancouver and Alberta, they would be wonderful additions to the USA.

"War as a business and ending wars as a business." - Some Senator whom didn't write his own speeches.

Well said! Thanks for being out there.

In Schenectady NY there was a factory that maid trains. WW2 came a long and it was switched to tank production. After the war, the factory went dormant. It was unused for the next 80 years until it was leveled and a riverside casino resort was built. But, all the manufacturing jobs that factory could have supported went unfulfilled for almost a century, and was replaced by a casino.

It seems you have missed an important factor: the motivation. The workforce during a war agrees to work harder than ever before for benefits lower than ever before - just to win the war. It leaves a huge surplus in hands of few. Some people make fortunes but more importantly some others (e.g. the hated government) can make investments which will profit everybody in the long run.

Anyone: Wanna buy some oil?! US: "Nope, I just want it"

At some point in my life, I've agreed with all the points in this video. While I'm not totally sold on the technology argument as I do think necessity leads to innovation- speeding up technological development as opposed creating things that wouldn't have been created anyway. I am glad this video articulated the reasons those reasons are common misconceptions. Great work!

The impact of the Bretton Woods conference on ​​the modern economy (on trade for example), and how little is mentioned is impressive.

Meamwhile in Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey: what war?

If you are the invader and winner, then YES, if you are the one being invaded and are losing then NO

I think you did a great job. Thanks!

Great Video! Thank you ;D

Coincidentally the title of this video, “War, what`s it good for?” is also the original name of War and Peace.

"Jack we're making the mother of all omelets here"

Great video as usual! Just one issue I take with it. Stating that an economys purpose is to satisfy the needs of its consumers is not a fact, its a value statement. An economys purpose might just as well be to provide and maintain ecological and social services and well-being. In fact even determining what an economy is is itself an age old discussion. What you are presenting as fact is a neo-classical assumtion, if I´m not mistaken. The reason for nitpicking is that we are in a moment when we need to rethink the organisation of our entire societys to get them in line with our planetary boundaries, and that means putting the purpose of the economy up for discuission.

I learned so much thank you!

War stopped being _broadly_ good for a nation's economy in the 50's, and has been _incredibly good for just a few corporate arms dealers_ at the cost of everyone else since then.

It did not work in Afghanistan...

The broken window example. Totally a great example. Haha

Good perspective, Which is consistent with more modern economic thought. In the old days, the principle was taught as "guns vs butter" but never went beyond the observation that the economy could be directed to a primary purpose of war vs peaceful production. Today, as described in this video, There is an acknowledgement that there may be a moral and even multi layer effect of production, in other words looking closer at whatever is being produced, and considering the short and long term value of that service or widget.

"is war good for the economy" Hoi4 players: yes

I will just a quote here: "Those who do not feed their army, will feed someone elses one"

Definitely still the best channel on RU-vid.

I like how you show how to analyse stats like GDP, unemployment and such, see the different ways the numbers canbe twisted, and what they are good and big good for. Can't tell you how many tryhards I have had to listen saying "the numbers obviously say this! Didn't you take economics 101?!" Now I can school them hard. Thanks Economics Explained!

Didn’t quite get the concept, bombed a small Gambian village to get my son through college.

(War) h'uh Yeah! (What is it good for?) Absolutely (nothin) uh-huh, uh-huh

You're amazing. Would be awesome to chill out with brains like yours. Miss uncharted X though.

Well broken window fallacy is good, when you broke a window to a stranger (in other country), and send your company to repair it :)

*red sun intensifies*

is sundowner and senator Armstrong here?

There is a lot of wisdom in this video

there is a video game character called sundowner who idolises war so much he even says a line: like the good old days after 9/11

Before even watching, let me guess... Yes, if you're winning.

Sun Tzu - war is the most important activity of a nation and should be accurately pondered. Also Sun Tzu - the real won battle is the one that is never been fought Usa: nah i don't care

Great song choice for the introduction! Ulysses S Grant approves.

Dang dude you are a machine. You are just cracking out videos. Ok now to watch the video.

9:00 "There is of course some benefit for being safe and having secure borders, but the reality is most countries would be able to achieve this with a far smaller budget" There's a reason for that: The US, China, and Russia all invest in their militaries so that almost every other country doesn't have to. That has been the case since since the Cold War. Saying there is only "some benefit" from security ensured by militaries is only applicable to countries who have no need for a strong military. For the real powers of the world, that makes no sense. For them, the military serves a supremely beneficial economic purpose in ensuring the security of their own trade partners and allies. If instead of 3 powers maintaining this balance, all nations had to worry about their own security, I can't imagine they could maintain as strong economies as they are able to now.

*SENATOR ARMSTRONG WANTS TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION*

I love that your videos are like they were made with Google AI. Throw in a script, AI picks up keywords and just throws back random stock videos with varying relevance.

Can you please do a video explaining the trade war between china and US in depth? Or a video explaining who needs who more, China or the US?

Just so you guys know there are three types of money systems: 1.Greco-Persian: Money that is back by precious metals. War can not be profitable because of the reason that the currency has a finite number of metal. 2.Italo-germanic:Money that is back by labor. This type of system allows war but it is not profitable because soldiers dying on the battleground will cause less labor thus the currency devalues. 3.Judeo-Anglo:Money that is backed by debt. This type of system makes war highly profitable because when countries need to go to war they need to borrow lots of money and the more debt the better, except for the working class and those who have savings because of the rapid inflation rates.

Sundowner gaming

great videos!

War, huh, yeah What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

TL;DR: War isn’t good for the economy, winning wars is good for the economy.