Comments on: The cost of the war http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 00:43:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: derrida derider http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184471 derrida derider Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:03:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184471 You can't help thinking that it would all have been much simpler to have just offered Saddam and his family a few billion to move to some South American country. But of course that would not have satisfied the war party's bloodlust. You can’t help thinking that it would all have been much simpler to have just offered Saddam and his family a few billion to move to some South American country.

But of course that would not have satisfied the war party’s bloodlust.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184384 abb1 Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:38:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184384 Current value of known Iraqi oil reserves is, I believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 trillion. <blockquote> With $339.9 billion in revenue and profits of $36.1 billion, Exxon earned more than any U.S. company in history last year -- more than the profits of the next four companies on the FORTUNE 500 combined. Exxon's return to No. 1 caps its emergence as not only the biggest but also the most powerful U.S. corporation by just about any metric. Last year, Exxon surpassed General Electric to become the most valuable U.S. company by market capitalization ($375 billion). It pumps almost twice as much oil and gas a day as Kuwait, and its energy reserves stretch across six continents and are larger than those of any nongovernment company on the planet. http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/31/news/companies/exxon_f500_fortune/index.htm </blockquote> Enough said. Current value of known Iraqi oil reserves is, I believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 trillion.

With $339.9 billion in revenue and profits of $36.1 billion, Exxon earned more than any U.S. company in history last year—more than the profits of the next four companies on the FORTUNE 500 combined. Exxon’s return to No. 1 caps its emergence as not only the biggest but also the most powerful U.S. corporation by just about any metric.

Last year, Exxon surpassed General Electric to become the most valuable U.S. company by market capitalization ($375 billion). It pumps almost twice as much oil and gas a day as Kuwait, and its energy reserves stretch across six continents and are larger than those of any nongovernment company on the planet.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/31/news/companies/exxon_f500_fortune/index.htm

Enough said.

]]> By: aaron http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184352 aaron Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:33:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184352 1.5 million is probably a good estimate for an american (current per capita GDP time average working life would get you a better number). You could get more precise (figure expected income of a soldier, contracter, etc), but I don't think precision is necessary for this type of analysis. For an Iraqi, you could do the same using pre and post war numbers. Still, there's the problem that much of one dead person's work will still be done, just by someone else (we are likely to overestimate the value of a life). 1.5 million is probably a good estimate for an american (current per capita GDP time average working life would get you a better number). You could get more precise (figure expected income of a soldier, contracter, etc), but I don’t think precision is necessary for this type of analysis.

For an Iraqi, you could do the same using pre and post war numbers.

Still, there’s the problem that much of one dead person’s work will still be done, just by someone else (we are likely to overestimate the value of a life).

]]> By: KCinDC http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184336 KCinDC Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:40:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184336 Ambrose, you left out the word "American" before "life" and "lives". Ambrose, you left out the word “American” before “life” and “lives”.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184334 John Quiggin Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:38:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184334 Neil, This <a href="http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2003/04/10/stories/2003041000171800.htm" rel="nofollow"> piece</a> from 2003 estimated the cost of containment at less than $20 billion per year. Neil,

This piece from 2003 estimated the cost of containment at less than $20 billion per year.

]]> By: Ambrose http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184330 Ambrose Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:05:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184330 If the dollar value of a life is set at $1.5 million, then the cost in terms of lost lives is $4.5 billion. I do not endorse the $1.5 million figure, but it is used in cost benefit analysis and is used by insurance companies in settling death cases. If someone has a better number, I would be interested in hearing it. If the dollar value of a life is set at $1.5 million, then the cost in terms of lost lives is $4.5 billion. I do not endorse the $1.5 million figure, but it is used in cost benefit analysis and is used by insurance companies in settling death cases. If someone has a better number, I would be interested in hearing it.

]]> By: bad Jim http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184323 bad Jim Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:40:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184323 The greatest cost of the war may yet prove to have been the two elections that produced Republican majorities in Congress and two conservative seats on the Supreme Court. It would certainly have been cheaper to prescribe free medication for the fear-stricken electorate, but they didn't want to be sedated. The greatest cost of the war may yet prove to have been the two elections that produced Republican majorities in Congress and two conservative seats on the Supreme Court.

It would certainly have been cheaper to prescribe free medication for the fear-stricken electorate, but they didn’t want to be sedated.

]]> By: "As You Know" Bob http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184319 "As You Know" Bob Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:20:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184319 A trillion bucks is a LOT of money. It's worth noting that America's attack on Iraq has cost enough to PAY every single Iraqi about $10,000 per capita PER YEAR. Of course, Republicans believe that foreign aid is intrinsically wrong - but it's worth considering how much good will we could have garnered by simply paying off the entire country. A trillion bucks is a LOT of money. It’s worth noting that America’s attack on Iraq has cost enough to PAY every single Iraqi about $10,000 per capita PER YEAR.

Of course, Republicans believe that foreign aid is intrinsically wrong – but it’s worth considering how much good will we could have garnered by simply paying off the entire country.

]]> By: Neil Morrison http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184303 Neil Morrison Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:35:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184303 Some of that money would have been spent on containing Saddam anyway. I'm not sure how much that was and one would have to factor in how long that would have been maintained and then what the range of costs there might have been in the method of Saddam's eventual demise. Some of that money would have been spent on containing Saddam anyway. I’m not sure how much that was and one would have to factor in how long that would have been maintained and then what the range of costs there might have been in the method of Saddam’s eventual demise.

]]> By: terence http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184302 terence Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:33:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184302 If anyone's interested, I had a (quick) go at looking at the opportunity costs of the Iraq war in terms of international development (improved global sanitation, health care etc). The post is <a href='http://www.devnet.org.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41' rel="nofollow"> here</a> I'm inclined to believe that the helath/education etc. cost estimates must be underestimates. But even if they were the numbers are still pretty shocking. If anyone’s interested, I had a (quick) go at looking at the opportunity costs of the Iraq war in terms of international development (improved global sanitation, health care etc). The post is here

I’m inclined to believe that the helath/education etc. cost estimates must be underestimates. But even if they were the numbers are still pretty shocking.

]]> By: aaron http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184291 aaron Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:17:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184291 Alternately, how could those dollar have been spent? Where would they have gone? What would we get? Alternately, how could those dollar have been spent? Where would they have gone? What would we get?

]]> By: aaron http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184290 aaron Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:15:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184290 Trillion $ war? How's the money spent and where does it end up? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a 'U'. Trillion $ war? How’s the money spent and where does it end up?

I’ll give you a hint, it starts with a ‘U’.

]]> By: stostosto http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184286 stostosto Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:38:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184286 <blockquote>Did that money really go to the opportunities that would have been missed?</blockquote> Well, by definition it went to something else that would have been missed. Since it did so, that something else must have been valued by those responsible for spending the money on that something else (whether consumers that saved some tax money or government that had more money for other programs or for paying down the public debt). This is sort of the point. And it's well worth making. In fact it should be shouted from the roof tops, over and over and over again.
Did that money really go to the opportunities that would have been missed?

Well, by definition it went to something else that would have been missed. Since it did so, that something else must have been valued by those responsible for spending the money on that something else (whether consumers that saved some tax money or government that had more money for other programs or for paying down the public debt).

This is sort of the point. And it’s well worth making. In fact it should be shouted from the roof tops, over and over and over again.

]]> By: Neil http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184276 Neil Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:04:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184276 A bit sweeping, the lack of a peace keeping force in Darfur is not the result of a lack of funds. But there's a serious problem with counter factuals here. Would that money actually go to all those wonderful missed opportunities? Clinton (and not intentionally, its not a criticism of Clinton) saved quite a bit of money not intervening in Rwanda and for 3 years in Bosnia. Did that money really go to the opportunities that would have been missed? A bit sweeping, the lack of a peace keeping force in Darfur is not the result of a lack of funds.

But there’s a serious problem with counter factuals here. Would that money actually go to all those wonderful missed opportunities? Clinton (and not intentionally, its not a criticism of Clinton) saved quite a bit of money not intervening in Rwanda and for 3 years in Bosnia. Did that money really go to the opportunities that would have been missed?

]]> By: Vance Maverick http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-184249 Vance Maverick Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:58:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/17/the-cost-of-the-war/#comment-184249 It's pretty good. At the end, though, Leonhardt mentions <i>the most popular alternative — a far-less-expensive political strategy that includes getting tough with the Iraqi government.</i> This is just a touch bizarre. I half suspect he first wrote "withdrawing the American military from Iraq", but some higher-up substituted a bit of boilerplate from Bush's TelePrompTer. The result doesn't even make sense -- "getting tough", whatever it may mean, doesn't entail any economic saving. It’s pretty good. At the end, though, Leonhardt mentions

the most popular alternative — a far-less-expensive political strategy that includes getting tough with the Iraqi government.

This is just a touch bizarre. I half suspect he first wrote “withdrawing the American military from Iraq”, but some higher-up substituted a bit of boilerplate from Bush’s TelePrompTer. The result doesn’t even make sense—“getting tough”, whatever it may mean, doesn’t entail any economic saving.

]]>