But the military employment factor was central to a rapid economic recovery ... The war effort on the home front saw record levels of Americans going back to work ... millions of firearms, billions of rounds of ammunition and other miscellaneous products
You are arguing the Broken Window Fallacy (break all the windows and put people to work). By this logic the best thing for the economy would have been to stay at war forever. But what happened to those workers who made the goods consumers would have bought but couldn't because of war taxes, rationing, and restrictions? How can it have been a real economic recovery if the only things being produced were things no consumer would ever buy? The end of the Depression consisted of a return to investment and production of consumer goods, something no sane capitalist would have attempted while FDR was still in office. If Roosevelt had survived the war the Depression would have survived the war also. It was the end of his administration that finally gave investors the confidence to begin producing again, ending the Depression.
First off, those are your words, not mine and frankly, their high flatulent and off topic. I'm not arguing anything. Also, I'm no Keynesian. Just pointing out historic fact. You chose to go off on some tangent that ignores historic fact relevant to the depression of the 1930`s and the war of the 1940`s.
The question remains. Whether the Great Depression finally ended in America because of our involvement in WWII? In the opinion of both experts and laymen, the facts are indisputable. America's involvement in WWII brought an end to the Great Depression in the USA. This not to say that going to war is a preferred method to end an economic downturn. Its not. In addition, we don't know what would have transpired had FDR lived beyond the wars end.
One thing is certain. WWII enlarged the federal bureaucracy and expanded the scope and powers of the federal government that has all but stifled the notion of limited government. Leaving America with a system of government perpetuating liberal policy agenda and today under Obama, strong moves towards national socialism.
There are some limited actions the federal government can do to lessen the negative impact of an economic downturn. Reducing regulations and lowering taxes on small businesses are two actions that can promote economic recovery. However, increasing taxes on high earners, small business owners and the wealthy, thereby cutting investment and stifling expansion, is not an action that helps to advance economic growth in the long term.
>>>>>... unemployment isn't recession. See my post #36 on the subject.
I read your post at RE:36. You made some good points, again. You also posted the following:
>>>>>>(Unemployment has nothing to do with the definition of a recession).
Outright bunkum! Pick up any book on basic economics and you'll find that a major factor, if not the #1 factor, that defines an economic downturn, as in a depression or a recession, is high unemployment rates. Sorry, there is no getting around that fact. In most cases, unemployment is also a lagging indicator to overall recovery, but that's a different aspect of economic trends.