Your response would be relevant if it addressed the point I made about using WWII as an example and if it lacked the sarcasm. WWII was a massive spending program by the government. It is credited amongst Austrian economists and Keynesians as the reason we got out of the depression. Therefore it is an example of how government spending can get a country out of a depression. It is incorrect to believe that government expenditures can never get us out of a depression. Is is also incorrect to believe that government expenditures can always get us out of a depression.
That is clearly uncharacteristic of the Austrian school. I never heard of an Austrian economist saying that's the reason we got out of the depression. I have heard the Austrians arguing just the opposite.
You will need to produce your claim that Austrian economists believe it to be so.
Beside, nobody can detect sarcasm on the internet. There's no body language to detect.
Addendum: Argument from authority is what you're arguing for getting out of the depression? The Keynesian and Austrians believe that World War 2 got us out of the depression therefore it is true is what you're arguing. That's unconvincing.
You do not understand the fallacy of argument from authority. I did not engage in this. If you think what I did was an example of the fallacy of argument from authority then you must think that people who insist that the person who performs their heart surgery be a heart surgeon are also engaging in this fallacy.
"Spending money on education is all well and good, but what about the dead GIs that we can't bring back to life? How many Einsteins, Teslas, and Neumanns die in that war anyway? We probably lost some of them in that war."
and
"Heard of the broken window fallacy?"
it's a bit too much to read this latest statement from you. A number of your statements on WWII were not relevant to my comments. You also made a number of unsubstantiated assertions. Also, the third sentence in my previous remark addresses your present question.
I believe a review of logical fallacies would be beneficial to you.
I merely point out the opportunity cost of lost human capitals due to wars. I also pointed out the rationing and economic hardship of civilians at home.
Don't tell me that you don't think a dead soldier is not a capital loss. Don't tell me that economic scarcity in time of wars is economic prosperity.
