JR has the germ of a point in that war expands the State and its power and inclination to mobilize and regiment, including the use of higher and more progressive taxes. This goes against the grain of 'markets' in some sense.
The Vietnam War did not hurt the economy. The standard explanation, with which I have no quarrel, is that the war helped to cause the economy to grow too fast at the very end of the 1960's, leading to inflation and volatility in the 1970's. In terms of real economic growth, by the way, the 1970's were better than the 1980's or 1990's. In this story, if taxes had been raised to cool off this growth, some of the problems of the 1970's could have been avoided.
mbs
This from Raimondo's latest:
"The leftist dogma that it doesn't matter which wing of the 'ruling class,' the capitalists, wins out in the end is refuted by this reality. Capitalism, per se, doesn't breed war: indeed, laissez-faire requires quite the opposite. And don't think the ordinary capitalist profits from war: this privilege is reserved for those with the right government connections. "The very real economic harm done by war – the cost in wasted wealth, as well as wasted lives – could pull the US, already mired in a sharp recession, into a full-fledged depression. The stock market is not going to like World War III – and neither will most Americans once they realize that all this talk about nothing ever being the same again means economic catastrophe. The Vietnam War drained the life out of the US economy during the late sixties and early seventies, and the financial shock of a prolonged Mideast conflict could well be far worse. In the end, the markets are vehemently antiwar – a phenomenon that must mystify Noam Chomsky to no end." Doug, others -- comments? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html DP