That figure is spanned out over the life of the war. Huffington uses the trillion dollar number because it is provocative however she fails, likely on purpose, to put it into context. Let's put some context to this number. If you made 50k per year, your lifetime earnings would far surpass one million dollars if you worked a normal work life. If I wanted to make someone making 50k per year appear rich, I would just continue to point to their lifetime earnings without providing any context. That is exactly what Huffington is doing here. In 2000, the stock market crashed and in six months there was three trillion dollars in paper losses. In other words, in six months there was as much in losses as over the lifetime of this war. I suspect that the three trillion dollar figure is figured over a protracted period of up to thirty
years. As such, while the number seems like a lot, it is not put into any perspective. Our economy generates thirteen trillion dollars worth of yearly gross domestic product. That means this war over its lifetime would cost us one third of one year's GDP.
Furthermore, while Huffington painstakingly recites all that we lose out in continuing the war..
Or, as Aida Edemariam puts it in the Guardian, it would have paid for "8 million housing units, or 15 million public school teachers, or healthcare for 530 million children for a year, or scholarships to university for 43 million students."
She fails to examine the costs of losing. How much will it cost us when Iran takes over the oil supply? She also doesn't account for the long term economic benefit of winning. What would a friendly Iraq bring us as a trading partner for instance? Furthermore, she doesn't examine the current economic benefits of this war. There is a school of thought that says that the depression was ended by WWII. That's because it instaneously created millions of jobs. While the benefits are not quite that high, those benefits are certainly not included in her calculations.
Then, Huffington says this...
Stiglitz makes the case that no country can fight a protracted war without deep and long-lasting effects on domestic policy. Particularly a protracted war paired with tax cuts. Now this doesn't mean a war shouldn't be fought (see World War II), but it does mean that our leaders should be honest about what the real costs will be. And not just in terms of dollars and cents but also in opportunity costs.
She fails to account for the fact that the tax cuts lead in a couple years to the biggest revenues this government has ever had. The tax cuts expanded the economy domestically. That is the dirty little secret of all those like Huffington, who favor tax increases, in the long run increases shrink government revenue and cuts do the opposite.
The measures I trust say that this war costs two billion per week. If that is correct this study is based on a commitment of thirty years. If so, this war would cost as much in thirty years as the internet bubble did in six months. Again, Huffington fails to provide that sort of context.
What she does is use a provocative number without explaining it. The costs of this war shouldn't be understated, however the Democrats and other war opponents have long used fuzzy math to make its costs appear much more than it is. The reality is that this war costs a fraction of most of the Democrats domestic agenda like socialized medicine.
Whatever the costs of this war are, they need to be put into context and this article fails miserably in that.
2 comments:
A very entertaining argument, you've made some good points. However, you are assuming that the Iraq war is a necessary expense, that it is the U.S. responsibility to “police” the world.
If this war were truly just, don't you think the U.N. would be backing it? As far as the economic benefits of "a friendly Iraq,” do you ever think there is a possibility of a country we have blown to pieces ever being "friendly" with us? According to a study funded by MIT, “655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.” Source. It is a horrifying estimate, even if it is over exaggerated. Now assuming they overcome that and do come around to being our “friends” what are the proposed economic benefits they have to bring? I'm sure their 90 billion GDP would help boost our failing economy. Oh, and to put that number into perspective, that's less than one percent of the U.S. GDP.
Another factor you’re not considering is the U.S. deficit that is climbing higher than ever before. Most estimates put it at around 7 trillion dollars, which would be over half of our GDP. Take a look at this chart to put that into perspective. Chart
You made one good point, however the rest is either factually inaccurate, totally without context, and worse yet totally ridiculous.
First, it is factually inaccurate to say the deficit went up during the Iraq War. The deficit shrank. The total debt went up because we continued to have a deficit however because the economy strengthened throughout the Iraq War the deficit in fact shrank every year of the war. No one knows what it would have done without the war and it certainly could have shrank even more without it but that is a theoretical arguement.
Second, this so called study that claimed 600k plus deaths has long been not only debunked but exposed as an attack by the agenda of George Soros. The real numbers are one sixth or one seventh of that.
Now, you make a duplicitous, cynical and ridiculous arguement by simultaneously bemoaning the costs of the war and then claiming that Iraq won't be an ally. You condemn its cost but give those costs no positive value. Of course, Iraq can and will be a long standing ally. Japan was destroyed by the U.S. and we immediately became allies. The same holds true of West Germany. (East Germany was another story but for different reasons)
You then make the UN as some sort of arbitor of proper use of force. That is patently ridiculous. The UN is an arbitor of nothing especially not the proper use of American force.
Then, you make geopolitical arguements about whether or not this war was necessary and whether or not we should be the police man of the world. That may or may not be true, but has no significance in discussing the economics of it.
You make an excellent point that Iraq is only 90 billion GDP. We are 13 trillion. That is true, but trade is only one way in which we will be helped, and it is remains to be seen what will happen to its GDP as the country flourishes into a democracy. Iraq is also sitting on plenty of oil. Having that oil in friendly, rather than enemy hands, has all sorts of outside economic benefits.
Post a Comment