JO 753 wrote:
Martin Brock wrote: Over sixty million people died in W.W. II. These people were hardly winners.
Wut woud the unemployment rate been like in the 40z and 50z if they hadnt died? Wut woud be the population now?
The unemployment rate would have been little different. The post-war baby boom might have been smaller, but that's debatable, and if it had been smaller, the smaller population wouldn't have much affected the unemployment rate either.
You might as well ask what the employment rate would be like now if the 200 million people added to the U.S. population since 1900 had never been added. The current U.S. unemployment rate is far too high, but it's not 80%.
Wut about tek development? War, or at least gearing up for it, iz a great motivator for R&D.
A dynamic market is also a great motivator for R&D, and people seeking profit in a market innovate to add value satisfying consumers. People seeking profit from a warfare state innovate to produce things that destroy other things.
I gess the deth benefit uv war can be questioned by comparison to other killerz, such az cigarretes and traffic accidents.
Individual smokers and drivers are best positioned to weigh the benefit they derive from cigarettes and cars against the cost of a shortened life, and of course, driving a car can also lengthen life.
By the lojik I'm using, it woud be a good idea to engineer fatality increasing featurez into carz and promote smoking vigorously.
But I don't remember the last time any car manufacturer, or even a tobacco company, advertised this sort of newly engineered feature. In reality, commercial innovators don't engineer features of this sort, because these features are not more profitable. On the contrary, a safer car is more attractive to consumers, and auto makers continually strive to sell safer cars for this reason.
Electronic cigarettes are much safer than conventional cigarettes and getting safer all the time. Far from creating this innovation, the state actively discourages it.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.
More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.
"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.