Exploring Economic Ideas

Hypothesis #1: Making Firecrackers is Economically Unproductive
Firecrackers are mere entertainment, lit once and then its usefulness is extinguished forever. Money spent producing a firecracker is therefor ultimately wasted. The only economically “productive” use of money is on capital investments: money spent on things which in turn produce more money (a computer, for example, because of the extra opportunities it opens; or factory equipment, because it increases the factory’s total output).

Hypothesis #2: Making Firecrackers is Economically Productive
Firecracker producers take raw materials (cartridge, explosives, etc.) and arrange them so as to create the potential for a dazzling light show, the way a drawn bow creates the potential for an arrow’s launch. People are willing to exchange their hard work (represented by money) to see these light shows, so the work done to create the firecracker is economically valuable.

Why These Hypotheses?
Firecrackers, in my mind, are analogous to bombs and weapons. How can building firecrackers be economically valuable and building bombs and weapons be economically harmful? Is war actually good for the economy? I’m still inclined to say no, because of the additional factors of destruction and loss of life, with the economic implications of which following just behind the pain of the losses themselves. But this little theoretical snarl troubles me. More reading is necessary!