• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • World War II: Economic Stimulant or Depressant?

    Did World War II spending boost economic growth? Although some statistics appear to affirm this, wiser historical analysis demonstrates that artificial increases in output during the war masked a debilitated private economy. Meaningful growth increased after the war, when free-market mechanisms returned and marginal tax rates were reduced.

    Gross national product (GNP), the total value of everything produced by United States domestically or abroad, did increase during the war and trended downward as the war ended in 1945, falling considerably in 1946 and 1947.

    It would be shallow analysis, however, to conclude that therefore war spending increased economic growth. Other factors must be considered.

    The war neatly divided the economic world into two parts: one that stemmed solely from the demands of government and the other, more familiar part that met the needs of everyday consumers and businesses. Underneath the national numbers that seem so robust between 1941 and 1945 stood an emaciated, barely conscious private economy stripped of resources and hope. This economy, a child of the Great Depression, bore little resemblance to its muscular cousin who fought on two war fronts.

    Unfortunately, some of today’s analysts totally forget this “Jekyll and Hyde” economic world. They celebrate the war years as the triumph of public-sector spending and as proof that government can lead us out of recession by opening up its purse.

    However, saying that spending increased output while ignoring production demands of war would be like saying that chemotherapy makes people healthy regardless of who receives it. But that ignores that chemotherapy should only be administered if someone with cancer has a real need for it. Administering chemotherapy to healthy individuals would likely adversely affect their health. Likewise, government should spend only when there’s a real need for it, and arbitrary spending adversely affects economic health.

    In the case of World War II, we had a national security need. Demand priorities shifted production toward that government function.

    This distinction is crucial. Today’s government spending advocates cannot point to real demand priorities like World War II. Instead, stimulus packages consist of mostly arbitrary spending initiatives sloppily designed by politicians with no consideration of genuine demand.

    This brings us back to considering how war production affected the private economy.

    What economic value did tanks, planes and other war machines provide, other than their purpose to win the war? Put another way, building fleets of battleships and proceeding to blow them all up in the ocean increases GNP, but is that really a wise use of economic resources? Does it raise living standards or improve anyone’s day-to-day life?

    It would be one thing if government had an unlimited supply of resources such as money, raw materials, factories, and labor to build war machines—and if inflation were not an economic reality. If that were the case, war production would have almost no adverse consequences on the private economy.

    But government has no unlimited supply. It has only the resources the private sector creates. During World War II, gasoline, milk, cheese, meats, metals, and scores of other products were rationed at home and redirected toward the war production and troops, leaving the private sector deprived and enfeebled. Would anyone describe such a society as prosperous?

    Accounting for such realities and correcting for wartime inflation, Simon Kuznets calculated GNP to more realistically reflect World War II production. Resources were freed up and redeployed toward more valuable economic uses after the war. Consequently, according to Kuznets, GNP actually increased after the war years, by 8 percent in 1946, and even more in the following three years.

    Robert Higgs notes a similar trend in private investment:

    From 1941 to 1943, real gross private domestic investment plunged by 64 percent; during the four years of the war, it never rose above 55 percent of its 1941 level [and] only in 1946 did it reach a new high.

    Tellingly, as the war wound down, stalwart Keynesian Alvin Hansen, voicing the conventional wisdom at the time, proclaimed, “The government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls.” Doing so, it was thought, would bring the depression’s return.

    That prediction was unfounded. Once the war ended, spending fell, marginal tax rates were reduced, and market forces returned. The economy didn’t hesitate to respond.

    Historian Burt Folsom notes that, following tax cuts on individual income and corporate “excess profits” in 1945, “a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.”

    Overwhelming evidence indicates that World War II only artificially increased output, while the private economy was left in the doldrums. Once the economic realities of war are accounted for, compelling evidence suggests that economic growth increased following the war’s conclusion and the return of market forces. The lesson today is as clear as history is undeniable: Government spending never works to grow an economy.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to World War II: Economic Stimulant or Depressant?

    1. Tom says:

      Typical short-sighted fiscal-conservative perspective. Does the writer realize he is handing the Left and Ron Paul a justification for slashing defense? The American people are too stupid to appreciate the dangers in the world when their precious pocketbooks aren't as full as they once were, or their portfolios are on a downturn. Justifying defense spending as an economic stimulus might not be ideal, but it's better than allowing our security to be gutted.

      And now, to offer a quick substantive response: The writer fails to consider that the post-war economy was in fact benefitted by victory in the war. It's not enough to just fight a war. The war must be WON. I know its politically incorrect to talk about victory and conquest in a military operation today, but the truth remains. World War II put America to work and laid the foundation for a positive post-war economy.

    2. Tom says:

      Typical short-sighted fiscal-conservative perspective. Does the writer realize he is handing the Left and Ron Paul a justification for slashing defense? The American people are too stupid to appreciate the dangers in the world when their precious pocketbooks aren't as full as they once were, or their portfolios are on a downturn. Justifying defense spending as an economic stimulus might not be ideal, but it's better than allowing our security to be gutted.

      And now, to offer a quick substantive response: The writer fails to consider that the post-war economy was in fact benefitted by victory in the war. It's not enough to just fight a war. The war must be won! I know its politically incorrect to talk about victory and conquest in a military operation today, but the truth remains. World War II put America to work and laid the foundation for a positive post-war economy.

    3. Spiritof76 says:

      Government spending is a detractor of alternative use of the resources. WWII spending is actually a waste of resources. However, it was justified to preserve the freedom to unable unfettered future economic activities for the benefit of our society. The Congress declared war and the spending was justified. The government did not interfere with achieving complete victory in about 4 years. Once over, military spending must be reduced to minimize the unproductive resource allocation. As such, it is not an economic boon but should only be a survival necessity.

    4. Wildcat, D-Town, PA says:

      The combination of rationing specific items for personal use and redirecting them to the war effort combined with actually producing weapons and ammunition and replacement parts before and during the war are all significant contributing factors that set up the American economy to grow and produce once evil was defeated. Winning the war was necessary and is one of the most significant factors as not winning would have changed everything. Once returning GI’s got educated by using their GI Bill benefits and entered the civilian workforce and previously rationed items were now not restricted our economy started to pull upward. This took a little over ten years and probably is reflected by the labeling 1957 as the year of the “Constant Dollar”. It should be noted that we also had another war in the early 1950’s in Korea that somewhat hindered the growth of our economy.

    5. Jim, CT says:

      I am very glad there are some people at Heritage that understand defense spending should be adequate for defending the life, liberty, and property of the nation's citizen's and not simply fixed at some arbitrary percentage of GDP. Wealth is measured by how much stuff one can consume, and if resources are being spent on activities that aren't producing stuff one can consume, then wealth is reduced by a corresponding amount. Just like politician's salaries, welfare, and the border patrol, defense spending does not ever contribute to the productive economy. Safety is an expense and resources used on safety should not exceed the threat.

    6. Matvei says:

      Congrats to the author for pointing out the economic fallacy of "war booms"-which Bastiat called the Broken Window fallacy. This, however-"In the case of World War II, we had a national security need." Is incorrect. The war in Europe was entirely unnecessary (a fascist concoction of TPTB in Britain and the US), as was the war in Asia. Pearl Harbor was a military target, and the Japanese were responding to acts of war committed against them.

    7. Jamal says:

      War spending is an initial stimulus, but it eventually catches up to you. Economic growth in the mid 1940s through the 1960s is likely attributable to the "Baby Boom." People spend money on babies & children, duh.

    8. Jesse says:

      The "Baby Boom" would not have taken place without humans to make babies. Whatever the economic consequences, entering and winning World War II was significant. I don't think any generalizations can be made in terms of war influencing economic booms because every war is different in terms of how paramount the circumstances. Like everything in this age, on a micro or macro scale, the sum of the whole must include spending. However, human beings are the ones who spend. Unfortunately, nothing is easy. There is no clear cut path and every war is unique, but no one can combat the fact that World War II produced economic growth. We may not be hear to spend money at all with out it. The author is truly correct in saying "we had a national security need" during World War II. I would rather not consider the war in Europe unnecessary. I like to be alive.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×