The resources at the time could be used elsewhere

helped consumers though

And making tanks helped consumers too

by protecting the nations

but they didn't demand it

Well

The scarce resources were used in other ways.

Aside from employing manufacturers, it didn't help consumers directly; only indirectly

Yeah, consumers never demanded it. The whole reason an economic system exists is to meet consumer demands

The thing about the spending was that it helped reduce the hoarding of money that had helped contribute to the depression (saving is good, hoarding is not)

Not to mention that the above-market wages forced by the government caused a bunch of people to become unemployed as well

What is hoarding defined as?

Yeah we said that xd

But of course, the war wasn't fought to help consumers; it was fought because of Pearl Harbor and the Nazis

So parts of the New Deal hurt the people who really needed it

hoarding is when saving becomes cyclical

Yeah, it boosted gdp though.

Whoops my bad

Which didn't improve the material standard of living

the war sort of did end the depression

Not at-all

The depression continued until post war

Boosting gdp growth with tanks and warships

Creating almost 0%unemployment isn't actually a challenge when the nations at war and theres a draft.

If every worker was staffed in the army and fleet we'd have full unemployment

and nothing to eat

but also 0 GDP

no production

*plus that debt-to-GDP ratio tho*

0 gdp?

The GDP went up

(and bust soon after)

the debt-to-GDP ratio was really smooshed by WWII

yep

when the spending was suddenly withdrawn

but

but gdp went up

then the economy boomed as production was converted back to civilian needs

boomed when?

I don't know how to find what amount of GDP went directly to war materiel

I gtg