I had done a fantastic job of avoiding the Potus Place until this morning. There is nothing good on the main forum except the Golden Bitches thread and for me that is worse then politics. Since I did not have anything civil to add there I clicked on Potus Place and right on top was this Stock Market thread, a subject near and dear to my heart. Maybe I can play here and be a bit more civil.
One can argue that government spending to purchase the weapons of war can stimulate the economy but it is stimulating a manufacturing sector that one would hope is not sustainable. In any case wars generate excess government spending how can one be critical of a government spending stimulus package for infrastructure and then applaud government spending for a war. Both do the same thing except generating jobs for making weapons of war is by definition depressing. IF the government is to spend in excess of tax revenues it is better IMHO to spend those funds where they will benefit the economy in total as with infrastructure as opposed to a narrow segment of economy, defense contractors.
On the more negative side wars are by definition uncertain. The outcome is not always a given nor is the duration, therefore, planning and financing of wars are difficult and disruptive to stable economic growth. If you correlate wars with the stock market you will clearly see that wars are a big downer for the stock market.
Bottom line, the argument that wars are good for the economy is difficult to support with facts and that wars are good for the stock market simply cannot be supported with facts.