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?
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
121 points (94.8% liked)
Not The Onion
21227 readers
1836 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rule of Acquisition #34: "War is good for business".
Seriously, search for "Ferengi rule 34"
Don't forget rule #35 then too
But also Rule of Acquisition #35: "Peace is good for business."
The old magic is still strong
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.
Feels like they missed an opportunity there
Burning forests is bad, but is it good for the economy?
Not prosecuting pedophiles is bad. But is it good for the economy?
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
Right. I mean it wouldn't necessarily be good for any economy but i don't think there is any country that has been at war as the us was the last century. If not by amount of years than surely by amount of enemies. At the same time i don't think there is a country that has produced and/or sold as many weapons as the us has the past century.
Japan was salty
Wrong, US oil embargo because they were salty Japanese economy was booming.
This is what capitalism has always been.
The broken window fallacy is so fucking back.
At least someone is asking the important questions. /s
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.
Couldn't get more WSJ than this
One should never go to war to fatten one's pockets. The people should not stand for it.
Has the WSJ been bought by Ferengi or what?
Close, Rupert Murdoch