Thomas_E._Woods, it’s unfortunate that they misquoted you, but the quote doesn’t say you think war can be a boon; it just says you think the “war = stimulus” claim is *more* supsect (than it usually is), when the economy is in good shape. Although I agree it’s worded so that you’ve hedged your position on the current state of the economy, which is misleading.

I would know what it’s like for others to attribute positions to me that I don’t hold. For example, someone here likes to keep saying that I think no IP would mean no production of intellectual works ever, even though I’ve never said that and in fact believe that’s garbage.

You go far too easy on Kanell’s article. It appears that he doesn’t even know there exists such a thing as economic law.

Consider the following absolutely incoherent and illiterate statements:

“Military spending pumps up profits; pulls employees out of jobs and into uniforms, providing paychecks for thousands of other workers; pours money into research; and pushes the nation deeper into debt.”

“Huge outlays by the government — especially when the money is borrowed — are generally expected to stimulate growth. If the economy’s resources and employees are already being used efficiently, the added spending sparks inflation.

Vietnam spending — paired with President Lyndon Johnson’s refusal to cut his domestic programs — is often blamed for kindling inflation that bedeviled the economy for the next decade.

Many economists think globalization has helped prevent a repeat of that outcome: A worldwide labor market keeps wages lower; cheap imports lower commodity prices.

Meanwhile, the debt behind war spending is snapped up by foreign buyers of hundreds of billions of dollars in bonds and notes. That helps keep long-term interest rates low.”

And consider here how, after he quotes Mr. Woods, Kanell falls right into the very mistake of looking at what is seen to the detriment of what is not seen.

“‘The reason nobody notices [the negative impact of opportunity costs] is that you can’t see it. I can’t see the houses not being built. I can’t see the computer innovation not being made. The costs are largely invisible,’ he [Woods] said.

Still, war spending looks like a good thing at Suwanee’s Firearms Training Systems. The firm, with 325 workers, has been growing at about 15 percent a year while roughly 95 percent of its revenue comes from military customers.”

—————-

What is this man smoking?

The largest single site employer in Georgia is an Air Force depot.

There are many defense contractors.

Then you have the bases.

Opportunity cost to them is a danger to many jobs.

I see no reason an Atlanta based journalist should be kind to the idea that defense industry and related spending could be better spent elsewhere.

Worse, it would be taken as unfriendly to imply all those good, steady jobs were in a parasitic industry as Seymour Melman might.

Yes, I gave him the broken window example. Apparently did no good.

I think this is a good example where you have to be aware of your audience, in this case the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

I know you’re not a politician, but when trying to posit a counter-argument I think one has to keep on message rather than trying to get someone to understand an issue more deeply.

The implied question is: Is there a down-side to war. Your answer is YES, and this is why… Perhaps best to provide a concrete example on where resources did NOT end up (hopefully in a manner which suggests Atlantans were ultimately screwed), then say this is an example of opportunity costs which aren’t apparent in policy discussions.

I don’t know how the interview went, but we all have to keep our heads up. Every politician does this homework before being interviewed so he can say what people want to hear. I don’t have the reference at hand, but when Reagan was interviewed by some libertarian-leaning publication he said good things about Hayek even though I highly doubt he read his work.