Exactly. It is a poor way to profit, but it is profitable, hence the military industrial complex...

It may not have been done on purpose. I wouldn't have known anything about it, but the interviewer at Reason asked the guy directly. He didn't appear to be aware that is was used in the past.

Well, it's mostly the use of the octopus imagery. It used to be used to represent Jews having their hands in everything.

I think I I see. We were able to benefit from the great loss of other nations... mostly by loosing less and being able to sell them what they were no longer able to produce. If I understand it correctly, I don't like that line of economic thinking very much.

Quite right, the world economy especially those nations that owed us and had massive destruction of infrastructure were forced to buy from us and repay the debt... The condition in much of the world economy and diminished capacity was our benefit.

I agree with all you have stated. The exception in this case was the value added to the products sold which was in excess of the money borrowed. It was our gain but the debtor nations loss. The loss to us was the devaluing of our currency, but in that world market, with other nations in worse shape than we, it was to our benefit... We were in the catbird seat... Their loss our gain...

not that the debt exactly of GB negates the prosperity the US enjoyed following the war, but the decimation of infrastructure. That loss of infrastructure was a decline in wealth (worldwide).
During WWII, incomes actually went down until 1944. People didn't want to buy bombers, tanks, machine guns. They wanted the normal goods and services-which were scarce.

When the gov prints money, it is taking value out of existing currency. So, the money comes from the public. That is not a net gain. Borrowing must be re-paid. That is not a net gain.
The same economists saying that war production was a good thing, were declaring disaster at the end of the war, due to the loss of a valid reason for having great control over the economy. But the people who survived the war were tough, resourceful, and fiercely independent.... and that is the reason for the post WWII economy growth. Not the government war spending. The mentality of the people.

Interesting... Please elaborate. Do you mean the debt incurred by other nations, such as the massive debt Great Britain owed the U.S. after the war?

somehow that part escaped me. I admit I listened more than I watched

I will have to watch the video again with a more discerning eye. I didn't get that. hmmm...

I quite agree...

I saw this video a few years ago when Reason.TV interviewed the writer. I think it's great for getting people who are oblivious to the nature of money to begin thinking about how it gets its value.
I may not agree with everything therein, but the basic premise is great. What is money? What is debt? You should be very careful how you spend borrowed money. My kids loved it, and I give the vid some small credit for the fact that my adult kids are very good with money.

Absolutely! Public debt rarely brings the promised prosperity.

Sure, individual people or nations could prosper, but the over bubble of wealth is diminished.

The loss of life is harsh to be sure. The Infrastructure in this case was built during the war by a government borrowing or printing money. In the case of WWII it turned out to be a good investment (an exception to the rule to be sure). This is a set of circumstances unlikely to occur again...

It is difficult to always apply scientific principles to an economy effected by the invisible hand. This is why so many economists disagree, is it not?

Yes, but where did all of the resources come from to build the infrastructure? It could have been done without the war.
The one thing large scale war does to improve an economy, is eliminate a larger percentage of the population than of the global wealth. That's a pretty rough way to improve your economy.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think there are some oversimplifications, but I think it makes several valuable points.

Good Job!

Public debt is inherently more dangerous. There is little sense of ownership on the part of the borrower, which greatly increases the likelihood of mal investment.

just so

Hear hear!

You are correct. However, there is money to be made producing war material and selling it to others. See my reply to MikeMarrotta.

There is one benefit to a military buildup that does help to mitigate some of the damage. We sell our older surplus production to allies.
The true benefit to the people is after the war is over and then only in certain circumstances. Many believe the military buildup itself improved our economy after WWII, but that is not true. It was government spending and borrowing that fueled the jobs during the war, but it was the aftermath that actually improved our economy. It was our massive industrial capability left after the war that allowed us to export goods to nations that had their infrastructure and industrial operations decimated during the war.