Any economic experts here?

What would be the result on the economy if the US cut all funding to the US military and pumped it into the economy. Let's say it was just split up evenly amongst the entire population. If I recall correctly, I think it would come out to be a little over a few thousand per person... Of course this wouldn't happen, and getting rid of the military completely would be a bad idea, but let's just assume it did happen and all other nations did the same. :P

My simple mind tends to think that it would ultimately boost economy, but I can't help but think that it might have negative affects.... I'm not sure what, but it just seems like it would. Any smart people care to inform?

With the exception of funds for overseas bases and the solider pay that may get spent in foreign economies, virtually all of the government's spending on defense is injected into the US economy through arms purchases, pay to soldiers, maintenance costs of infrastructure etc...

The fact is that the Right wing has long used the government to subsidize the economy (and redistribute wealth) but they do it on a different basis from progressives who want to see it based on economic need. The right shifts money to landholders (farmers) and the military industrial complex and to politically like-minded individuals (volunteer soldiers) who get long term benefits and pensions.

I agree.

On staff at DU? I'd donate to see it happen.

Any proposed redirection of federal funds must consider the impact on the recipients of such funds, both direct and at the second and third tiers of flow. The industries and workers and communities currently supported by such funding must atrophy away and the labor force must adapt (training and location) to the new directions.

The Federal government is, in many communities, the majority source of income. Even moderate fluctuations create a "ripple effect" in the economy where people lose their homes and businesses are closed.

At the same time, the Military-Industrial Complex has one of the most biased-for-profit systems in the country which is why it's so 'popular' with the wealthy. It's the perfect "planned obsolescence" ... not even having to wait for the product to wear out. Drop a bomb and a new one is needed immediately.

It's cancerous.

...break for the rich? Or simply inject a give away of $409.25 for every man, woman and child in the country? Classic economic theory says that would trigger inflation as there would be additional dollars chasing limited goods, followed by a recession as the new money becomes absorbed and spending either goes back to where it was before or actually stops because the new money might cause an over-heating of spending through credit extensions causing a whiplash effect.

This happens with the military spending all of the new money as well, but the funnel is much narrower with the majority of funds ending up in the hands of the few war profiteers and politicians on the take while those selected workers who produce the weapons benefit to a limited degree. But once the weapons, missiles, planes, soldiers, etc are produced, the economic benefits again cease or actually become negative, if those weapons are immediately used for their only purpose which is to destroy real assets and kill people.

Now, if that same commitment of $124 billion were made to create long term infrastructure which would benefit the whole of society, such as 4th generation nuclear power plants, sea water to fresh water desalinization processes, hydrogen production plants, intercontinental high speed magnetic levitation railway systems for the efficient and safe movement of goods and people, etc. that would benefit not just the current generation, but future generations to come, then there would be economic benefit that all of society in which every one could share.

Supply-side trickle down the pantleg BushCo economics which leaves the bulk of pant-load turd for a select few to wallow in and pick through is not only failing the U.S. economy, but is actually destroying it.

are making money while the workers are not. So there is low inflation. If all that money came home..then the prices of things would rise and the stock market would have to be cooled down for a bit to stop the inflation.

Tens of millions of people depend on the military budget for their income. They wouldn't all be able to get new jobs overnight.

Government spending is government spending as far as the GDP is concerned.

From what you are talking about, giving it back to the people, it is really like a tax cut. Instead of the government spending the money, people would be spending or investing that money instead. The GDP would be around the same, but people would be buying consumer goods instead of government, so the average person would benefit more.

However, in reality things are never that simple and there will be unintended consequences which are harder to predict.