When talking about the myth of World War II's lifting America out of the Great Depression, and the tremendous growth some countries experienced after the war (especially Germany and Japan), there is one disturbing point to be made.
Of course production for war itself does not make a nation richer. And obviously part of America's growth after the war was because the capital base of many other nations had taken a huge hit.
But we all know that the more capital per person, the more productive they are and the more employers are willing to pay. So the disturbing conclusion is that war is good for the survivors, and the more people that die in war the wealthier the remaining people will be (so long as their capital base is not damaged too much).
I would never use this as an argument for war, which I personally consider perhaps the greatest possible evil, but it's true, right?
What matters is not capital itself, but capital that can be used in the production of things people want. Capital is heterogeneous. So just taking the same capital base and dividing it up among a smaller number of people doesn't necessarily make them have more wealth.
Furthermore, you're viewing this from the standpoint of biological competition. Reducing the population not only means less human resources but it also means fewer opportunities for mutual benefit through cooperation. If your local butcher gets killed in a bomb it doesn't mean more for everyone else but less, as now they no longer have a butcher.
War can never be beneficial from a utility-maximization sense, even a defensive one (albeit it will be less harmful than a surrender).
You're right on the money and Dr. Hoppe discusses how war often has the effect of leaving the survivors wealthier, per capita, here.
Clayton -
From Azure:
What matters is not capital itself, but capital that can be used in the production of things people want. Capital is heterogeneous. So just taking the same capital base and dividing it up among a smaller number of people doesn't necessarily make them have more wealth. Furthermore, you're viewing this from the standpoint of biological competition. Reducing the population not only means less human resources but it also means fewer opportunities for mutual benefit through cooperation. If your local butcher gets killed in a bomb it doesn't mean more for everyone else but less, as now they no longer have a butcher. War can never be beneficial from a utility-maximization sense, even a defensive one (albeit it will be less harmful than a surrender).
Just to be clear, I mean per-capita as Clayton mentions below. You make some good points, there are losses from malinvestment (producing for war and any associated business cycle effects), the loss of trade & specialization of labor, and destruction of capital through war itself.
Still, the question remains - is the increase in per capita capital greater than the loss from these other things?
Hmm... can't get to the video that Clayton linked, Vimeo is blocked again in China (even when using Freegate).
I don't think so. Let's consider the ideal situation from the perspective of preserving the capital base from a war loss: A volunteer soldier for an invading army being killed in combat. Because they were a volunteer they aren't employed to anyone other than the military (as opposed to a draftee being suddenly yanked from their career), and being killed away from home means other than any personal items he had on him at death all of his possessions are intact.
Outside of some useless statistics (the average number of houses per capita has gone slightly up!) and the utility of him being dead for any possible enemies, does ANYONE gain by his death? Sure his family members and the like get his possessions but are they really overall better off for it? And outside of an unideal situation the losses are even worse.
Only if the population loss doesn't hurt the extent of your division of labour. BTW,
And obviously part of America's growth after the war was because the capital base of many other nations had taken a huge hit.
Why would Europe losing capital increase American growth?
the "broken window" theory surely knocks that idea on the head, had the war not happened there would have been faster development of capital. the global economy lost the productive capacity of Europe for a decade. What the war did was create winners and losers. And I guess even the "winners" lost out as they were under paid and otherwise inconvenienced during the war.
It is true to a point. In the old days, the words "plundering" and "spoils" were used. This was at least more honest, and directly benefitted the soldiers who were willing to shed blood for their country. Today, the military gets paid pennies on the dollar relative to their technical prowess and awesome destructive capability.
Also, the populace could see the spoils of war benefitting them directly. In ancient Rome, enemy property was put up for public auction, and citizens could benefit from their enemy's former lands and shiny trinkets. This is not the case now. In other words: if we're at war for oil, where the hell is my oil? Why are gas prices not falling? Why can't I at least keep that new AK-47 from someone I killed with my own hands? Who ends up owning the property that it is our right-- my right-- to plunder?
The power and influence gained go to keep the worlds's population permanently oppressed; the spoils taken go to make interest payments. Governments and central banks reap all the benefits today, and make everyone else poorer in the process.
There's a prophetic Dead Kennedys song which makes this same conclusion, of course there is some anti-capitalist themes in the song, but also a strong antigovernment theme. :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9hYAQQFsoc
"the more people we kill in this war, the more the economy will prosper"
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I think there is a point being neglected in this discussion, mainly the great waste of resources a war involves. It costs a million dollars to kill one "enemy". Imagine half the appliances in your house just disappearing one day. No Fridge, TV, computer, half your clothes are gone, and there is a shortage of materials to replace all that you are missing. Little comfort knowing your next door neighbor is dead, so you get part of what little he had.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Clayton: You're right on the money and Dr. Hoppe discusses how war often has the effect of leaving the survivors wealthier, per capita, here. Clayton -
Sorry, but you got it wrong. Dr. Hoppe is describing warfare under Malthusian conditions as a means of population control. The OP is discussing WW2, which is not warfare under Malthusian conditions.
@ the OP
The reason for immense post-war growth in America and the occupied powers was the elimination of the great bulk of wartime controls and government controls in general.
America and the occupied powers would have experienced far more growth, if they had removed all controls they had prior to going to war and had traded with each other. A great amount of capital was diverted and consumed, and a great amount of the labour force was diverted or killed. Both effects reduce the average standard of living.
The only time that killing off a large number of people can raise average living standards is when the population is greater than its optimal level.