How to reprise World War Two today and save our economy

     There seems to be a consensus that World War Two – and not the New Deal – finally rescued the US economy – even though the impact of that program is hotly debated. If war is the answer then why haven't our two questionable “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan spurred economic growth? The obvious answer is that the wars of today and yesterday are vastly different.

The economic conditions in 1942 were vastly different from today's conditions. I will itemize them as follows;

    1] The deficits were proportionately much greater. While Bush ran up huge deficits to bankroll the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan they were proportionately less than a third of Roosevelt's deficits.

    2] There was a nearly unlimited demand on production of military goods. We were in a real war with an enemy capable of militarily defeating us. Our economy is driven by low wages and high profits from outsourcing industry and employment of low wage workers – including illegals [capital intensive].

    3] The military production was much more labor intensive. The demand for labor was nearly unlimited and living wages were paid. Those not in the military were making stuff for the military or providing goods and services for both the military and arms industries.

    4] The consumption of goods for noncombatant families was limited. We were in a real war and most citizenry made sacrifices. The result was a pent up demand for consumer goods after the war. Unlike conditions in allied countries and defeated enemies our manufacturing base and infrastructure was not mostly destroyed. During this period the money supply increased along with supply of investment capital for expansion. In Bush's wars only a small portion of people contribute to war effort and only a small portion profit from execution – and they are not the same people.

    It should be obvious to anyone outside of Pentagon think tanks that we can't afford a war with someone capable of defeating us militarily. It is also obvious that the even the most stereotypical “Islamofascist” state and/or criminal gang has absolutely no hope of ever prying one of our outlying protectorates from us – much less inflict military defeat. The major problem with the use of WMDs is that the impact can't be contained or even predicted. In order for someone to pose a viable threat they must have an economy comparable to ours – that is not dependent on our consumer base or that of other industrialized countries. When that happens the country will at worst become a rival bully.

    For a Roosevelt war recovery to occur we must mobilize our resources to an urgent and necessary goal. BHO's “green jobs” program is a credible alternative to a “life or death” struggle with someone who can obliterate the planet. So would McCain's “energy independence” agenda. BHO has the advantages of being more labor intensive and better long-term sustainability. McCain's has the advantages of being less expensive and having an infrastructure that doesn't have to be built from the ground up. If we applied the Roosevelt war “sky is the limit” cost approach why shouldn't we do both? IF we want to appease the right wingers why not approach the “Islamic terrorists are coming” hysteria with a real labor intensive program that shores up our borders and repairs easily sabotaged critical infrastructure. Once we get our energy independence off the ground with cleaner nuclear, gas and coal alternatives we can use the savings to bankroll longer term energy sources.

    The biggest problem with this suggested approach is that it extends beyond the next election and sound bite campaigning. And we should know from experience that no politician ever got punished for expanding government's power to interfere in “someone else's” lives. How much tolerance does this society have for “those people”? Will it be enough to stave off a fall into tyranny? I fear for my children in our future.