The Libertarian Capitalists are trying to twist US WWII economic activity into something that did not lift the remaining unemployed (from about 25% to 10% via New Deal efforts) out of near starvation and did not set up the post-war economy for a continuation of that fact.
My comment about the paper (PDF) "The Reality of the Wartime Economy: More Historical Evidence on Whether World War II Ended the Great Depression," by Steven Horwitz and Michael J. McPhillips:
We don't need violent war to put the same level of people to work this time producing what the people really need and want and per the people's actual choices via voting with their local, grassroots ballots rather than simply with their unequal wallets (unequal mostly through no fault of their own unless not being a huge bankster or other cheat is a fault).
The question as posed by the paper is, frankly, stupid or "cleverly" tricky. Steven Horwitz and Michael J. McPhillips completely and I should think, deliberately dodge the salient issue -- the one that matters.
Of course there was deprivation because of the violent-war effort. However, the point is that the same degree of effort put forth toward a non-violent war on poverty would not result in deprivation but the exact opposite.
Regardless, the people who were completely unemployed pre-war who were then employed in the war effort where materially better off. It is true that during the war people who had been materially better off where often worse off though. If there were a non-violent war on poverty with as much effort put forth in that as there was in fighting the violent WWII, those who are now materially better off would not be then worse off. That's the point that matters. That fact renders the paper ("The Reality of the Wartime Economy: More Historical Evidence on Whether World War II Ended the Great Depression") an interesting read solely for the facts that don't support the real motives of its authors.
The shift to the peace-time economy was necessary to move the economy from production for weapons, ammunition, etc., to non-militaristic production, even though the Military Industrial Complex continued. Nevertheless, WWII set things up for that to happen as it did.
What the authors of this paper want is something they can't do. They want people to misbelieve that public efforts in peace-time can't end recessions and depressions.
Of course, Greenbacks (tax- debt- and usury-free United States Notes v. taxed- debt-based- usury/interest-bearing- Federal Reserve Notes) created and handled correctly would preclude recessions and depressions barring natural catastrophes that would sink any economy for a time.
Look, if the point is to argue against war, I'm totally with that. That though does not appear to be the point of the paper but rather to support the false position that public efforts, cooperative efforts, collective efforts, cannot result in a higher quality of life.
What Libertarian Capitalist always appear to ignore is the public effort that is the opposite of central planning, as if central planning is the only "socialism." It isn't. The problem with Anarcho-Capitalists (anarchists) is that they appeal to selfishness, which is their own self-fulfilling prophecy. Why accept a lower spirit rather than ask people to rise to the higher one?
Do you really believe Jesus Christ taught selfishness? Why do you Libertarian Capitalists preach anti-Christ ideology and philosophy and economics? Why do you call people to fall rather than rise?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)