from Jean Holman
An interesting article appeared in the August 28th issue of The Economist, in which the profitability of war is discussed, No doubt readers will be pleased to know that, in the words of the New York Times, "Independent economists believe that Portugal gets more out of the war (in its African territories) than she puts into it." The article goes ons "It has stimulated industrial activity in a country that has for years been on a tight financial rein and know stagnation as the result,"
The author then discusses some of the other recent colonial wars: "The eight-year (Algerian) war from 1954-1962, coincided with a great deal (though not all) of the French ‘miracle’ of economic expansion in the 1950s, The Korean War created a world-wide boom, and the war in Vietnam, though hardly felt by the huge American production machine, is certainly not having a restrictive effect," Despite this the Economist denies the validity of th: Marxist "claim" that capitalists need foreign wars to keep their econ» omies going. It repeats Keynes! opinion "that is a country was following on over=stagnationist policy it would be worth its while economically because of the multiplier effects - to set men and machines to work even to dig profitless holes in the ground, preferably in the most complicated technological way." Thus, the Economist concludes, capitalists do not need war providing "they are managing their economies sensibly," I suppose one coula°#% is more "sensible" to dig useless holes in the ground than wage war, but what about the starving millions of the world who need gosds?