Quote from: Brunic on November 14, 2012, 11:35:50 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbitcoin113 on November 14, 2012, 04:58:13 AM

1) Perhaps it was the war weakening the competition that lead to america"s rise
2) What happened afterward? Did they stop "injecting money"?

If the answer to #2 is yes, I would like to know how you measure this. If it is no, then that is not an example of what you said earlier.

1) It surely helped, without any doubt.
2) The war effort ended, so, in a way, they stopped subsidize this war industry and what was related around it. But at that point, people had more skills and qualifications that were acquired during the war. That they continued to inject money or not is irrelevant, since what is important is the capacity of the population to produce something. It's not that hard to measure, since the baby-boom is the best symptom of that era. People had now the capacity to make new things that weren't possible before the war, because they didn't had the skills, assets and investments at that point.

Jobs are created using a mix of knowledge and investments. You can't make a business if you are missing:
-the knowledge or capacity of doing it
-having the basic investments to start it up

If you're lacking jobs, the best thing to do is to teach your population so they can learn and think new things, while providing them the basic investments possibilities. Those two things needs a social intervention, usually provided by a government. In the case of WW2, factories were popping up left and right for the war, and people working in those also learned these jobs. When the war ended, you had many production lines available for any businesses that were subsidized by the government during the war. People had new opportunities that created crazy growth.

When people don't have money, they can't create the investment needed for education or businesses. If the state also cut at the same time, I don't see how you can encourage growth and education. Back in 2008, we were also affected by the economic crisis, and some people had difficulties finding jobs. What happened? Since school fees are really really low (lowest in North America! Cheesy

), many people went back to school. When the economy started to recover, the same people had now more knowledge and qualifications, and were doing more valuable work.

...

I agree that spending for spending is not a good strategy. My call is free education and providing assets for start-up and small businesses. The best way to solve a job problem is not to find one, it is to create one for yourself.

So the government should always inject money no matter what? Or is there some consequence of this?