[gwd]

Remember that 100 years ago, and then again 80 years ago, large percentages of men in Europe were removed from their own countries and sent somewhere else; ships transporting food and supplies were actively sunk, houses and factories were bombed to smithereens. In spite of the massive economic damage that caused, civilization did not descend into anarchy, and very few people who weren't prisoners starved to death.

COVID-19 isn't going to destroy any of our infrastructure, and if we mobilize properly, isn't going to kill nearly as many people. If our [great-]grandparents made it through WWII, there's no reason we can't make it through this.

[rckoepke]

>very few people who weren't prisoners starved to death [during WWII].

If it's relevant, 3 million people in India died due to widespread starvation during World War 2 caused by British colonial and war-time policies. Additionally all their cloth production was used by the British war effort, so many Indians went without clothes during that period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Cloth_fa...

[gwd]

Right, I remember listening to an episode of Revisionist History about that [1]. Outrageous and shameful.

I'd have to listen to the episode again, but I think the most outrageous and shameful thing about it is that it wasn't actually necessary. The way Gladwell portrays it, they died mostly due to the personal spite of one person.

[1] http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/15-the-prime-minister...

[generalpass]

> Remember that 100 years ago, and then again 80 years ago, large percentages of men in Europe were removed from their own countries and sent somewhere else; ships transporting food and supplies were actively sunk, houses and factories were bombed to smithereens. In spite of the massive economic damage that caused, civilization did not descend into anarchy, and very few people who weren't prisoners starved to death.

> COVID-19 isn't going to destroy any of our infrastructure, and if we mobilize properly, isn't going to kill nearly as many people. If our [great-]grandparents made it through WWII, there's no reason we can't make it through this.

In The U.S., WWII was funded by the savings of that generation, which is really amazing considering they had been in the longest, deepest economic depression in the nation's history prior to the start of the war.

After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country.

Going into what we are doing right now, Americans don't have any savings plus many private and nearly all public institutions have a lot of debt.

There is no indication that the government will permit such a freely flowing economy even after whatever it is we are doing has ended, so I don't find direct comparisons relevant.

[kazen44]

> After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country

the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities literally leveled, or their nation/people nearly utterly destroyed.

Even the UK, which was a victor of world war 2 had an economy which was basically dead in the water until the late 70's.

The US got incredibly "lucky" during world war 2 in the sense that it didn't fight the conflict on its own continent.

Also, the marshall plan was a smart policy in an economic sense because it allowed the war economy to transistion back into civilian goods thanks to having a massive (subsidized) export market.

[generalpass]

> > After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country

> the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities literally leveled, or their nation/people nearly utterly destroyed.

> Even the UK, which was a victor of world war 2 had an economy which was basically dead in the water until the late 70's.

> The US got incredibly "lucky" during world war 2 in the sense that it didn't fight the conflict on its own continent.

> Also, the marshall plan was a smart policy in an economic sense because it allowed the war economy to transistion back into civilian goods thanks to having a massive (subsidized) export market.

Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.

The Marshall Plan was passed in 1948.

[TeMPOraL]

> Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.

Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness.

[generalpass]

> > Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.

> Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness.

What does this have to do with post-WWII economic recovery in the U.S.?

[newyankee]

US got favorable deals in many countries using its military might, i guess that is what the comment is implying.

[samstave]

>Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.

These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.

[generalpass]

> >Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.

> These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.

Well, taken out of context of the discussion, you can say lots of things.

[s1artibartfast]

Do you have any sources that compare government and private savings at the two time points? I am surprised by your claim that savings were higher at the height of the great depression

[generalpass]

> Do you have any sources that compare government and private savings at the two time points? I am surprised by your claim that savings were higher at the height of the great depression

Not immediately, but the U.S. was on a gold standard at the time and funded the war through war bonds (and establishment of income taxes) which were largely purchased domestically.

The gold standard bit is important because the government was not able to simply print money to fund the war.

[carleverett]

It sounds like you're arguing against the idea of debt altogether. Debt is a great, great thing that's allowed us to accomplish way more as a society than we ever could before. Way faster too.

Yes, there is irresponsible lending that winds up in temporary value being created that we later find out was fake, and yes it's scary when the government is that lender. Maybe ironically, gold now works as a store of value that hedges against government money going bad.

But debt it still a great system that will continue to work well after COVID-19.

[generalpass]

> It sounds like you're arguing against the idea of debt altogether. Debt is a great, great thing that's allowed us to accomplish way more as a society than we ever could before. Way faster too.

> Yes, there is irresponsible lending that winds up in temporary value being created that we later find out was fake, and yes it's scary when the government is that lender. Maybe ironically, gold now works as a store of value that hedges against government money going bad.

> But debt it still a great system that will continue to work well after COVID-19.

There is no argument for or against debt. You are inserting something not there.

It is notable, however, that to create debt there must be a creditor.