I think, Ezekiel, that you have jumped back into the causation trap again with both feet. Just because wars always have economic effects does not mean that economics is the cause of the war. It is logic 101. Nor is it true that participation in war creates economic bounty - indeed, the opposite is generally true. The United States has succeeded despite, not because of, its participation in wars. Vietnam and Iraq are prime examples of that. Are their entities that gain economically as a result of war, yes, but not the economy as a whole. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that it was not WWII, but the economic policies put into place before it, that ended the depression. WWII actually set us back economically, but the end of the war brought prosperity because of the underlying infrastructure changes that had occurred during and after it.

In sum, I think the premise is fundamentally flawed.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich