Posted on 01/07/2006 6:48:17 PM PST by shuntos
The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.
The report came during one of the most deadly periods in Iraq since the invasion, with the US military yesterday revising upwards to 11 the number of its troops killed during a wave of insurgent attacks on Thursday. More than 130 civilians were also killed when suicide bombers struck Shia pilgrims in Karbala and a police recruiting station in Ramadi.
The paper on the real cost of the war, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, is likely to add to the pressure on the White House on the war. It also followed the revelation this week that the White House had scaled back ambitions to rebuild Iraq and did not intend to seek funds for reconstruction.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
This guy sold his soul to the Clinton administration. When it came to increasing the minimum wage he basically said the "Demand for labor slopes up." He concluded that an increase in the minimum wage would actually increase employment. He ignored the arguments in his own text book which clearly stated the demand for labor like all other goods and services is inversely proportional to the wage (price of labor).
After he sold his soul I quit listening to a single word he ever said since. LOL.
IIRC, Arafat, Carter and El-Bareidi(sp?) won Nobel prizes too.
I think I'll get my advice from a Magic Eight Ball.
ibtz???
Actually you hit the nail on the head. The only meaningful economic analyses involve the comparison of two or more mutually exclusive economic/investment scenarios. Choosing one hypothetical to justify a political point is pure nonsense at best.
In brief, the economist bull---tted the estimate more than usual to generate another misleading headline.
ANYONE can win a Nobel Prize.
It is given for being eble to justify a Socialist, PC world.
And the real cost of not fighting the War on Terror is losing the Republic. I think the balance sheet tips in favor of the war. But thanks for playing, Mr. Big Shot Economist.
Actually, we didn't go to Berlin. The Soviets did and their value of life/political and military gain ratio was a little sckewed
What does the medical field look like under sharia?
You know "sckewed" isn't actually a word. But it should be.
This was an investment the US earned in taxes spent on defense and weapons over 40 years - an investment paid in dollars and blood. We may never know the extent of the damage done to US security by the evil Manchurian president clinton.
Dead or 2 Trillion?......hhmmmmmm.....Dead or 2 Trillion?.....hhmmmmm.....Dead or 2 trillion?.......Decisions.....decisions....
Rip the pages out a Koran to stop the bleeding and say Bush did it?
How 'bout economics, what does that look like under sharia?
Where is the evidence he gave nuke tech to Iran? I rate him poorly as a Leader, but that is a weighty charge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.