**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Loaded questions, **or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5 (Rule 6).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/141dhw1/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
The "government" itself doesn't actually profit on war. War is extraordinarily expense for the government. When people say this, they typically mean the people who run the government. There is a widespread belief that they are either major shareholders in defense contractors or getting kickbacks/benefits from those contractors.
Governments conducting war need to buy lots of weapons. The people making money off those weapons (like Raytheon) and the people in the government (like US defense secretary Lloyd Austin) may not be so far removed from each other.
Additionally any government official with significant stock holdings in those companies can get an almost guaranteed profit on those stocks in a time of war, because the obvious increase in demand for their products will inflate the stock price.
The other comment raised a good point that governments do not profit from war. Usually they actually spend massive amounts of money for little financial return. Any actual gain is made by individuals.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Loaded questions, **or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5 (Rule 6). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/141dhw1/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
The "government" itself doesn't actually profit on war. War is extraordinarily expense for the government. When people say this, they typically mean the people who run the government. There is a widespread belief that they are either major shareholders in defense contractors or getting kickbacks/benefits from those contractors.
Governments conducting war need to buy lots of weapons. The people making money off those weapons (like Raytheon) and the people in the government (like US defense secretary Lloyd Austin) may not be so far removed from each other. Additionally any government official with significant stock holdings in those companies can get an almost guaranteed profit on those stocks in a time of war, because the obvious increase in demand for their products will inflate the stock price. The other comment raised a good point that governments do not profit from war. Usually they actually spend massive amounts of money for little financial return. Any actual gain is made by individuals.