It Would Be Cheaper to Fight World War II Again
Did anyone, even two or three years ago, expect this situation to develop? We need to go back only ten years, to fiscal year 1999, to reach a time when the government’s total outlays were smaller than this year’s deficit. Ay, mamacita, what’s going on here?
To get some perspective on how totally crazy the government has gone in its almost incredible overreaction to the financial and economic developments of the past year, consider that during World War II, which was paid for mainly by borrowing, the government ran deficits during the fiscal years 1941-46 that added about $191 billion to the national debt by the end of this period. Since 1947, when price controls no longer distorted the price indexes, the GDP deflator has increased about 8 times and the consumer price index almost 10 times. To be conservative for present purposes, let’s use the CPI to adjust the purchasing power of the dollar. We may conclude then that in present dollars, the deficits the government incurred to fight the greatest war in history, for the six years in total, amounted to about $1,910 billion, or only 9 percent more than the deficit expected in the current fiscal year – a wartime year, to be sure, but the present wars are certainly not large ones by historical standards.
Maybe it would be better if the government scrapped its present budget entirely, and provoked the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor again. Then we could fight World War II over. Yes, yes, many people would have to die, but the Pentagon could compensate these unfortunates by awarding each of them a posthumous Silver Star, and in a strictly financial sense, this plan would be much cheaper than what the government is doing now. The largest deficit of the war, incurred in fiscal year 1943, was, in today’s dollar’s, about $546 billion, or less than a third of the deficit the Obama regime (building on the Bush regime’s proligacy, to be sure) will run this year.
comments powered by Disqus
Robert Higgs - 3/1/2009
I am as alive as any man to your point, Bill, which is why I wrote "in a strictly financial sense." My comment does not purport to speak with profundity about the full costs of war, but seeks only to illustrate the enormousness of the current U.S. government budget deficit by comparing it to the deficits during World War II (which Paul Krugman views as a public-works project large enough to pull the economy out of the Depression -- now there's a real obscenity for you).
William Marina - 2/28/2009
My grandson is at the VA hospital here in Asheville. A Marine fighting in Iraq in '04, including Fallujah. He is minus a foot and suffering from PTSD.
When I visit there, I see vets from all of our wars and interventions, including back to WWII, maimed in body and soul, consuming drugs and booze, many of them homeless and now deposited in an old motel nearby. The VA calls them "in transition" without saying to where!
What price would you put on all of that, even if we just include the "after-cost" of only WWII?
The wounded and dead will soon be increasing as well as NATO up the ante in our intervention in Afghanistan.
- West Point historian says if his cadets can understand the history of war, so can Congress
- Australian historian Alan Atkinson wins $100,000 literary prize
- From his perch in Saudi Arabia, Princeton’s Mark Cohen says Jews and Muslims should remember they used to get along
- Duke honors historian John Hope Franklin with year-long series of events
- What New Left History Gave Us