Quote Originally Posted by Awakening View Post
The Allies needed supplies of materials for war, and the U.S. sold it to them. It boosted the economy and employment.
This doesn't really answer the questions I proposed.

The whole point of an economy is to satisfy the demands of consumers. The sort of jobs "created" for the war did not include creating goods and tending to services desired by the consumer base. Furthermore, such jobs were "created" at the expense of possible job creation in the productive sector of the economy, and when one factors in the drafting of people into the military, the amount of workers available was significantly less. One must also factor in the loss of the workers drafted into the military due to death. And of course, one must factor in the fact that any goods produced for the war, which allegedly lead to increased economic activity and by extension recovery, were destined to be destroyed, and most were.

As Mises said, "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."

The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism. One should expect some government intervention on economy after that crash. Why would 100% liberalism do it better?
How was the bubble the result of too much economic liberalism? By liberalism I assume you mean something akin to free markets.