Appeared in the March 14, 2026, print edition as ‘War Is Hell. But Is it Good for the Economy?’.
Feeding orphans to the machine is tough on you, but is it good for the economy?
Not prosecuting pedophiles is bad. But is it good for the economy?
Couldn’t get more WSJ than this
Its good for weapon manufacturers! Its going to raise gas prices and basically everything will be more expensive for us. The rich will get richer fuck the rest of us.
At least someone is asking the important questions. /s
This is what capitalism has always been.
One should never go to war to fatten one’s pockets. The people should not stand for it.
The broken window fallacy is so fucking back.
Has the WSJ been bought by Ferengi or what?
Close, Rupert Murdoch
Burning forests is bad, but is it good for the economy?
Rule of Acquisition #34: “War is good for business”.
Seriously, search for “Ferengi rule 34”
But also Rule of Acquisition #35: “Peace is good for business.”
The best results are going to be video essays so make sure you switch to the videos tab. The still pictures won’t do it justice.
The old magic is still strong
Don’t forget rule #35 then too
War is good for the economy. That’s why America has been at war 56 out of the last 100 years, and that’s only counting the big ones, specifically WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. There are other smaller conflicts. This isn’t news. In fact profit incentive was one of the underlying causes of world war II. Japan was salty because during WWI they had an industry boom and in the intervening years they had a recession.
Somehow i have trouble believing the us was at peace for 44 out of the last 100 years. Not saying you’re lying, just feels a bit strange.
I repeat, that’s only the big, famous conflicts. Throw in Liberia, Guatamala, The Berlin Blocade and a bunch of other small to medium conflicts and you might hit the full hundred
Japan was salty
Wrong, US oil embargo because they were salty Japanese economy was booming.
