News & Articles

Americans have many myths about the importance and necessity of our massive military establishment. One is the belief that military spending fuels the economy.

But is military spending good for the economy?

A large body of economic research says it is not.

In terms of economic stimulus non-military government spending produces more multiplier effect and return on investment than military spending. Other public spending priorities are better for the overall economy.

The military-industrial complex is certainly a part of the economy. It has received large, consistent government support for more than 80 years.

Today it is alive and well and continues to consume, depending on how one counts the costs, 60 to 80 percent of federal discretionary spending and a significant part of mandatory spending. Some people, communities and industries do benefit from this military spending but that does not mean it is good, necessary or economically justified.

There are many reasons why military spending is not good for the overall economy. There are numerous economic studies which have documented these reasons.

The misleading belief in the economic benefits of militarism is rooted in the events of the 1930s and World War II. Government spending on war mobilization and armaments did end the Great Depression. But this could have been achieved with other government expenditures if implemented on the same scale.

President Roosevelt tried to boost the economy with the New Deal. But taxes or deficit spending to fund human, social or public infrastructure needs has rarely been politically possible. War, however, never lacks funding no matter how high the debt becomes.

The Cold War continued large military expenditures during a time of significant economic growth and expansion of the middle class. This spending did contribute to the economic good times.

But there is a principle in statistics that says correlation is not causation. Just because two things occur together doesn’t mean one caused the other.

Given what we now know, it is likely that the post-war boom would have happened without the military spending.

More significantly, had the trillions wasted on war, the arms race and nuclear weapons been used for domestic needs the long-term economic benefits would have been much greater.

We should also remember wars are extremely destructive in many ways. It is doubtful that these huge human, social and environmental costs, or the waste of resources, were factored into claims that war is good for the economy.

War and preparation for war is inherently wasteful. The definition of waste is spending resources on things one does not need and will not or hopes not to use.

Military spending is, perhaps the most inefficient of economic activities. We all know the Pentagon is riddled with waste, fraud, cost overruns and no-bid contracts. Corruption and boondoggles are common.

The military is especially inefficient at creating jobs. Numerous economists have documented that money spent on personal consumption, health care, education or public infrastructure creates significantly more jobs than the same money spent on the military. Studies show military spending produces 5 jobs per $1 million. The same investment in education creates 13 jobs, in health care 9 jobs, and 7-8 jobs in infrastructure or clean energy.

This is true for military weapons manufacturers who receive about 50% of the Pentagon’s discretionary dollars.

When weapons contractors receive more money they don’t hire more Americans. They typically increase profits, CEO compensation, pay more in dividends to stockholders or buy back shares of stock.

Also contracting out to foreign suppliers with cheaper labor costs has increased in recent years.

Economists say there are several reasons why military spending produces fewer jobs per dollar. First, education, health care, clean energy and other government activities are more labor-intensive. More of the money goes to employees and less to equipment and materials.

Second, a greater percentage of spending in these activities stays in local communities and is spent locally creating more multiplier effect. The Pentagon spends a lot on foreign military bases, foreign contractors and has 220,000 military personnel and civilian employees stationed overseas.

Military spending does support stable, well-paying jobs especially for high ranking military officers and defense contractor employees. In the past many weapons manufacturing jobs were unionized. But this does not negate the many downsides of military spending.

Economists say any economic benefit from military spending is offset by the loss of long-term investments these dollars could have purchased. Excessive military spending harms rather than helps the economy by diverting resources away from more important or productive industries and activities. These opportunity costs are especially severe with education, healthcare, environmental improvements and technology.

The current administration’s increases to military spending while gutting support for green energy is a classic example.

Some people claim the Pentagon is a source of technical innovations that spin-off to the private sector. This is true for electronics, computers, GPS, satellites and communication technologies. But it can be argued that directly funding research and development, especially basic science, would have a similar impact with lower costs.

Plus the research could be targeted at real human needs rather than new ways to kill people and destroy the planet.

Global studies say that for most countries military spending depresses long-term economic growth. This is attributed to the unproductive nature of military spending. Too often the investments needed to produce productive sustainable, successful countries are consumed by military activities. Wars and excessive militarism are a major cause of failed states.

Then there is the economic costs of the national debt. The costs of war and our global military establishment are a primary reason for this debt. All our wars since WW2 (with the exception of Korea) have been financed by borrowing. Most economists (especially conservatives who typically support military spending) say debt and deficits are bad for the economy. But the debt continues to grow regardless of which party is in power. 

Our choosing to prioritize military spending over all other considerations is not good for the economy, our country, our people, or the planet. We can do better. But first we must change our militaristic beliefs. Then we can build a better, cleaner, safer, more secure, more prosperous society for everyone.

I usually cite sources for my writing. In this case there were too many to list. If you want documentation you can do an Internet search. Supporting resources won’t be hard to find.