> It was argued in my macroeconomics class this semester that wars are never, EVER good for economies. Wars involve the consumption and destruction of capital...such as in the use of production to create goods that are destroyed, or in total war, where the means of production themselves are destroyed.

This is a bit short-sighted and overly broad. The consumption of capital doesn't translate directly into a loss of wealth, necessarily, and I stand by my argument where targeted government spending can ramp up a specific economic sector, such as the industrial base needed for war. I think we can agree that there can exist situations where a large influx of capital is needed to help an industry, which will eventually be profitable. In such cases government intervention may, in the long-run, help the economy.

> There's also the problem where the state is overtaking segments of the economy...and the state hasn't a clue how to effectively dictate a complex economy.

I'm confused by your use of "overtaking." Does this mean that the government

> re: The New Deal. The Great Depression was actually two massive recessions surrounding a slight recovery. From...I think it was 34-37, the stock market (the primary indicator of investor confidence in future production) was moving upwards, as were production levels and whatnot.

Like any economic indicator, stock mocket indices are part of a larger picture. That they're the "primary indicator of investor confidence in future production" doesn't mean they're a good measure of current economic health. And, hell, the market is often completely wrong about the future. The burst of the tech bubble should be evidence enough of that.

> The second recession/stock market crash "coincided" prefectly with the aftereffects of FDR's attempts at packing the Supreme Court, which had previously acquired the nasty habit of striking down New Deal legislation. FDR had the effect of "scaring" the Court, causing one Justice to switch his vote on a momentous case, in effect changing the ideological balance on the Court, allowing New Deal legislation to move through. And the economy tanked. A real recovery was not underway again until 1945.

For me to accept cause of the second recession as the Supreme Court now allowed FDR to pass his legislation you'd have to show me significant evidence. It seems as likely that I could blame it on a decrease of federal spending from '35 to '38. I don't think it's entirely due to either (though both likely played a role). If you look at other economic indicators, such as the GDP or the unemployment rate, you see that FDR's entire term pre-WWII is marked with significant upswing, including the years after the second recession ended in '38 and before war mobilization in '42.

I wouldn't argue that FDR can take credit for all the successes, but I wouldn't blame the setbacks solely on him, either.

Stephen