At what point does fighting in Iraq become too much ?

[Bill_Thompson]

Jerry Bowyer of NRO compares the cost of the Iraq war to date with this handy chart of the costs of America's previous wars as a percent of GDP.

Critics of the war in Iraq often complain about the “escalating cost of the war.” Listening to them, you’d never know that the war is one of the least expensive in American history.

Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University, has measured the cost of each major American war up through the first Gulf War. We took these costs and compared them to the cost of the Iraq war and found that the Iraq experience has consumed a smaller percentage of GDP (just 2 percent of one year’s wealth creation) than every other American war except the first Gulf War (which measured just 1 percent of GDP).

This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP at the time. Other conflicts, such as World War II, took a remarkable 130 percent of a year’s GDP to see through to success.

The work is not done in Iraq, and the financial costs will grow beyond the $251 billion we have spent so far. The real cost, of course, is in human lives, manifested in the debate about whether it is worth losing a few thousand American lives in order to liberate 23 million people. But the data are clear; any attempt to discredit this war based on its effect on the U.S. economy is an unnecessary distraction.

[Enzo]

But of course GDP is not what we fund the war from, we fund it from the federal coffers.

Ignoring for a moment that the Bush administration doesn't include this war in the budget, what is the percentage of Federal outlay compared to same for those other wars. What percentage of the federal budget goes to this if it were included?

The Feds live off our taxes, so what portion of our tax revenue goes to this war?

[Мастер]

But of course GDP is not what we fund the war from, we fund it from the federal coffers.

Well, yes, but the federal coffers get filled by taxing components of GDP.

Ignoring for a moment that the Bush administration doesn't include this war in the budget, what is the percentage of Federal outlay compared to same for those other wars. What percentage of the federal budget goes to this if it were included?

The Feds live off our taxes, so what portion of our tax revenue goes to this war?

Since there is a deficit, the war cost as a percentage of outlay is lower than as a a percentage of tax revenue. But the following link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... f/hist.pdf

has figures on GDP, government revenues, and government outlays beginning on page 21, going by the page numbers in the document (which are different than the page numbers of the PDF file, since there is an introduction, table of contents, that sort of thing). You should be able to see this with your new high-speed DSL line :)

It looks like the numbers are not adjusted for inflation (the US economy did not grow at a 10% per year rate between 1978 and 1982, for example). However, one of the tables has revenues and outlays (both total and on-budget) as a percentage of GDP. Take the cost of the war as a percentage of GDP (and it looks to me like the figures cited are the total cost of the war divided by one-year GDP, maybe an average GDP figure over the life of the war), divided by revenue (or outlay) as a percentage of GDP (take an average over the life of the war), and presto, you have the cost of a war as a percentage of revenue (or outlay).

Either way, compared to major conflicts like WW2, the figure you're going to get is, not much. But I'm not really sure what we learn from an exercise like this. If the government increases its spending on non-war programs, then the cost of any given war goes down as a percentage of government spending. I'm not sure why that should affect how we feel about that war, though.

If the question being asked in this thread is, can the US afford the Iraq war, I think the answer is clearly yes, a country as big and rich as the US can easily afford to pay for a conflict of the magnitude of the current Iraq one, which is a low-level guerrilla conflict. As for whether it is desirable for the US to continue to pay for the war, the relevant benchmark for the cost of the war would seem to me to be the benefit derived by continuing the war, not GDP, tax revenues, or government spending. If continuing the war provides little or no benefit, then why continue it, even if it is cheaper than other wars have been? On the other hand, if a war provides huge benefits, then maybe it should be prosecuted even if it is very expensive. I don't know that many people will feel the US should have just surrendered in WWII because the cost of the war was too high...

Personally, I feel it is obvious that the US can afford to maintain troops in Iraq at the current level indefinitely. Whether it should do this is another question altogether...

[Мастер]

Just to put things in perspective, according to this place:

http://blog.mlive.com/oak_business_revi ... te_of.html

the US spends $41 billion per year on pet care. I wasn't able to find a number for annual US spending on cosmetics...

An argument that the war is bankrupting the US, destroying its economy, whatever, is just nonsense. That said, just because you can afford to do something doesn't mean you should do it...

[Dragon Star]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3374/is_n14_v20/ai_21147316

There ya go KOS. 1997, $49.9 Billion ages 12-19.

[Arneb]

Which is how many times NASA's budget? :?

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3374/is_n14_v20/ai_21147316

There ya go KOS. 1997, $49.9 Billion ages 12-19.

Reminds me of this:

'America is not at war, the Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.'

Posted on a white board in a Marine Infantry Battalion CP in Anbar Province, Iraq.

[Мастер]

Which is how many times NASA's budget? :?

Well, I found a document at the NASA web site that said $15.1 billion.

Not sure to what you want to compare it - cost of the war, total revenues, total outlays, GDP, spending on pet care, or spending on cosmetics. But if the war, I don't think Germany took all the money it saved by not participating in the Iraq war and spent it on space exploration :)

Disclaimer - I do not claim that you made the following argument, and therefore my comments should not be interpreted as a criticism of you. However, you said something that reminds me of something that is routinely said at BAUT, and consequently you now have the pleasure of hearing me spout off about it. So, disclaimer out of the way, here is my rant.

When someone at BAUT asks for justification of NASA's budget, there is a pretty standard set of responses. One is to spew venom on the infidel for daring to question the one true faith. Since anyone who asks such a question is obviously possessed by the devil, the appropriate action is a prompt burning at the stake. The BA himself flew into a rage in his blog once because a reporter had the audacity to ask what the benefits of space exploration are. If they really think the public should fork over whatever amount of money they want, no questions asked, then it's understandable why they think about other planets all the time, because they're not going to be very happy on this one.

But, if someone actually attempts to reason with the infidel, instead of offering the correct response (waving crosses and chanting religious slogans), one of the arguments inevitably offered is, so what, the government wastes ten times as much money on this or that or the other thing. The Iraq war is a fairly common whipping boy. This argument sends shivers down my spine. I'm trying to imagine a NASA administrator testifying before Congress. When asked what the benefits of his various programs are, he promptly answers that he can't think of any, but so what, they're funding programs that are wasting ten times as much money as NASA! I guess we're supposed to fund every program, whether it has benefits or not, as long as there is at least one program that costs more. Somehow, I would have hoped that a bunch of space enthusiasts could come up with a better argument in favor of space exploration than, "It's only the second biggest waste of money!" But, reading any kind of financial or economic discussion at BAUT is rather like watching a competition in the special olympics, so I suppose I have to be realistic. (Apologies to Ronald Brak and noclevername. These two do not sound like they're in the special olympics when they talk about such things.)

Obviously the US can afford to increase its budget on space exploration. The questions of whether it should hinges on the benefits that flow therefrom. I don't buy everything I can afford, and the government doesn't either. The government should not engage in space exploration simply because it can afford to, anymore than it should fight the Iraq war simply because it can afford to. It should choose to engage in those activities which produce benefits that are worth the cost, regardless of whether that cost is large or small. Since many space enthusiasts seem genuinely baffled or even outraged that someone would actually feel a need to ask about the benefits from space exploration, rather than simply taking them as axiomatic, I guess it's not surprising they have trouble securing the funding they want.

End of rant. Again, this is not directed at you, you just happened to step on the land mine :)

[Heid the Ba]

I thought Arneb was tossing a grenade rather than stepping on a landmine.

[Мастер]

I thought Arneb was tossing a grenade rather than stepping on a landmine.

Well, if that's the case, I could redirect my rant :)

[Lance]

What about:

"We should explore because it's what we do. You can't always anticipate the benefits of your exploration until they are realized."

Where would we be if someone a few hundred years ago had said "No, you just get the Pinta and a month's worth of supplies. We can't afford any more than that."

[Arneb]

However, you said something that reminds me of something that is routinely said at BAUT, and consequently you now have the pleasure of hearing me spout off about it

Which is exactly what I was trying to tease out of you. :D Yes, Heid, the grenade analogy is very much closer to my intentions than the landmine one. Or let's make it a big fat worm for a bait :wink:

On the other hand, I was really interested in the figure. Notwithstanding your precise words about "second worst wastes", I think the figure is somewhat comforting - if NASA, supporting a horrendous money-burner like the Space Shuttle; a pricey piece of premium hardware like the ISS; and very, very many hugely interesting unmanned space missions, spends less than a third of what the people in the USA spend on cosmetics, then one can't say, in my opinion, that NASA was particularly or mind-numbingly expensive (which, as you said is not the same as "good value for money"). Then again, maybe cosmetics are hugely expensive, and therefore O.K., never mind.

I read somewhere on the BA's blog that for every dollar spent on space exploration, twenty dollars were created in the real economy by way of spinoffs, technology advances, etc. I tend to side with KOS's severe doubts about these figures (even though I am not competent at all to take any sides here). I also happen to think that the money spent on space exploration is in principle money spent well and worthwhile, for entirely non-economic and non-fiscal reasons. But that is not part of this discussion.

Speaking of which ... didn't all this start when bullshit BT tried to lure us into a flame war about how the Iraq war was or was not going to break America's economic neck? Nice try, that one. And he even managed to pick the NRO as his source, this shining beacon of moral integrity and responsibility, one of the few remaining pillars of "the Spirit that build America". (Quiz question: Who said this, and on which occasion :D ). All of us retarded, tree-hugging, green slime socialist peaceniks would of course go dribbling and drooling (quiz question: Who said this, and on which occasion?) over how evil the NRO is and how good Hillary.

Yeah, nice try. Thanks for shooting that one down, KOS. Among other things.

[Enzo]

So on average, NASA costs each of us about $50 a year? I mean that bridge to nowhere in Alaska only cost me like 65 cents.

Realizing of course that with deficit spending I pay less than that in the given year, but a lot more than that over time due to interest. Yes?

[Мастер]

So on average, NASA costs each of us about $50 a year? I mean that bridge to nowhere in Alaska only cost me like 65 cents.

Don't know the cost of the bridge to nowhere, but my understanding is it only had 50% support even from its beneficiaries :P

Realizing of course that with deficit spending I pay less than that in the given year, but a lot more than that over time due to interest. Yes?

Well, yes, but on the other hand, you can set aside your share of the deficit and save it, thereby earning interest. So I wouldn't worry too much about the interest :) But for sure, money spent will be paid for through taxes - now or in the future...

Wow, not much to say in response to the other comments, but I will just point out, critiquing an argument in favor of something is different than being against that thing.

Lance, regarding uncertain future benefits, sure, but that's true of practically every investment :P Why this one, and not some other?

Arneb, I have asked (and I've seen others ask) at BAUT for the source of all the spectacular claims regarding the dramatic economic effects of spending on space exploration. I'm still waiting. And, as you know, this is my sore point with BAUT. Silly physics theory, better provide evidence. Silly economic theory, we don't need no stinkin' evidence...

[Lance]

Lance, regarding uncertain future benefits, sure, but that's true of practically every investment :P Why this one, and not some other?

Why not?

Why not both? Why does it have to be a trade-off?

[Мастер]

Lance, regarding uncertain future benefits, sure, but that's true of practically every investment :P Why this one, and not some other?

Why not?

Why not both? Why does it have to be a trade-off?

Because we don't have infinite resources to fund everything that might possibly be of benefit.

[Lance]

Lance, regarding uncertain future benefits, sure, but that's true of practically every investment :P Why this one, and not some other?

Why not?

Why not both? Why does it have to be a trade-off?

Because we don't have infinite resources to fund everything that might possibly be of benefit.

Then how do you determine what has the greatest benefit?

Or do you even have to?

[KLA2]

KOS, it saddens me to see a person I respect and admire at odds with a board (whose principles, objectives and many members) I also admire.

The folks at BAUT probably do not know your education and expertise. It might help if you told them, in general. In fact, they might call on you for advice.

This kind of reminds me of one of those kung-fu films where the hero is attacked from all sides and, spinning and kicking, defeats all the bad guys (or there, woo-woos.) Then his buddy taps him on the shoulder from behind, and he spins around, fist cocked …

If the buddy was wearing a mask, the hero would lay him out, for sure.

BAUT is not a generic organism. It is composed of many diverse individuals constrained by an admirable code of conduct. Some push the limits.

A lot of space exploration falls under pure science rather than applied research. Hard to justify economically, looking forward. Looking backwards, in the long run, generally very worthwhile. {Queen Isabella: “You want me to fund WHAT??” Columbus: “Did I say - just to see what is out there? I meant, to find a shortcut to the Orient. And gold. Lots and lots of gold.”}

BAUT (pro space exploration) folks are a little sensitive about their ox being gored in its most vulnerable area, funding. The scientists and engineers perceive your questions as an attack, one they are not equipped to counter. You need to make them understand that in the long run your important economic questions will determine the fate of the space program.

I dimly recall something called “the multiplier effect.” If the government pumps 20 billion dollars into the private sector for applied scientific research, the benefits should be exponential, no? {With umpteen caveats, of course.} To demand that any given scientist or engineer name and quantify those benefits, however, is probably unfair. :?

(If they don’t like an economist, wait until they meet an accountant. {“An auditor is one who goes in after the battle is over and bayonets the wounded.”})

In fact, the economics of space exploration/SRED would be worthy of a forum there. Perhaps if you let BAUT know your credentials, and intent, they would ask you to start it. Maybe contact To Seek. (Sadly, just as with the science, it would mostly be way over my head.)

FSM help us all if experts in their fields fight turf wars rather than pooling their knowledge for the common good.

A board is made better, or worse, by its members and what they choose to contribute.

You are not an enemy of BAUT, or vice-versa. Make sure they know that before you tap them on the shoulder.

Hope no offence is taken. None is intended.

[Bill_Thompson]

But of course GDP is not what we fund the war from, we fund it from the federal coffers.

Ignoring for a moment that the Bush administration doesn't include this war in the budget, what is the percentage of Federal outlay compared to same for those other wars. What percentage of the federal budget goes to this if it were included?

The Feds live off our taxes, so what portion of our tax revenue goes to this war?

But the GDP is the worth of the country. It is what we can bear. I do not see any real change in my life since the war in Iraq has started or that it has dragged on. Compare that to WWII when goods had to be sanctioned and people could not buy butter or nylon.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3374/is_n14_v20/ai_21147316

There ya go KOS. 1997, $49.9 Billion ages 12-19.

Reminds me of this:

'America is not at war, the Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.'

Posted on a white board in a Marine Infantry Battalion CP in Anbar Province, Iraq.

This is part of my point.

[Мастер]

Hi KLA2,

Thanks for your kind words. I have a response typed up, but I am trying to edit it down from its current length (approaching that of "War and Peace") to something a bit more reasonable. It may take a while. But at this point, let me just mention, no offense was taken :)

I may ask you at some point about this place a friend of mine calls "Canadia." I may have a long-term job opportunity in Ontario, although it will be months at a minimum before we know for sure whether it's an option...

[Blue Monster 65]

Yep, America's at the mall and we're holding bake sales at the Legion for body armor.

Thanks a lot, fuckers!

Woof! - Scott

[Bill_Thompson]

Yep, America's at the mall and we're holding bake sales at the Legion for body armor.

Thanks a lot, fuckers!

Woof! - Scott

What does that mean? America is fucking at the mall? Wouldn't "ingrate" be a better term to use?

Perhaps, if you are using obscenity for shock value, try "fucking ingrate". Or maybe even "mother fucking ingrates" to add that splash of colorful imagery we all enjoy.

But, seriously, why are YOU upset about this? Are YOU holding bake sales? Or are YOU a member of the armed forces?

[Bill_Thompson]

But of course GDP is not what we fund the war from, we fund it from the federal coffers.

Ignoring for a moment that the Bush administration doesn't include this war in the budget, what is the percentage of Federal outlay compared to same for those other wars. What percentage of the federal budget goes to this if it were included?

The Feds live off our taxes, so what portion of our tax revenue goes to this war?

That is kind of like saying my house payment comes out of my checking account. So depending on how I arrange my finances, my house payment would either be a large burden to me or a small one.

That does not make sense.

If I had a house I wanted to keep, I would do everything to keep it including selling my furnature and old clothes and working multiple jobs and on weekends doing anything from selling snow cones to picking up paper.

Saddam's Iraq was a state sponser of terrorism. It is a fun talking point that there were no weapons of mass distruction. But to the Iraqi people and lots of military advisers, that does not matter because Saddam, himself, was a weapon of mass destruction. And in the climate of post 9-11, the USA was not going to tolerate him playing cat and mouse with the UN.

The truth is that noone wants to go to war. Countries are pushed into war because it should be a result where we put our necks on the line. All of our necks.

If you look at history and if you look at the burden that the people at home had to endure during each war, this graph is, as the brits would say, spot-right-on. People at home suffered the most during WWII, more than any other war and in second place would be the Civil War and third place would also be the Revolutionary war. Those three would be way out in front of the other wars.



So it is easy to get a sense that the other comparisons are accurate too.

I know that in terms of American lives lost, the last two wars are really small change. We would loose more in a single battle in many of the other wars.

[Heid the Ba]

The truth is that noone wants to go to war.

It didn't look like that at the time; it appeared that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were all too keen. After all, they had convinced themselves that it would be quick and cheap, with plenty of lucrative contracts for them and their friends.

It is also disingenious to say the US went to war to stop Iraq playing cat and mouse with the UN. My recollection is that the US went to war despite the UN.

[Bill_Thompson]

The truth is that noone wants to go to war.

It didn't look like that at the time; it appeared that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were all too keen. After all, they had convinced themselves that it would be quick and cheap, with plenty of lucrative contracts for them and their friends..

Is this a conclusion based on observation and supposition?

Is this an idea or is this the whole truth? It might be true but it may not be the whole picture. There is a difference between fact and supposition. An idea and facts are not the same thing.

Lucrative contracts were given to associations. But to say, "since lucrative contracts were given to associates, the war was started just so that lucrative contracts could be given to associations" is an example of the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this). The post hoc ergo propter hoc is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Sequences don't establish a probability of causality any more than correlations do.

It is also somewhat non sequitur. It does not follow that since these deals could be made like this, men (and at least one woman) would decide to go to war. The Vice President, I recall was not on the payroll of Halliburton anymore. So drawing a line from him to the funds is a broken, and blurry line at best.

It is also disingenious to say the US went to war to stop Iraq playing cat and mouse with the UN. My recollection is that the US went to war despite the UN.

Or to save the UN. I was watching the proceedings intently for weeks. One resolution was passed. It was violated. Another resolution was passed. It was violated. Another resolution was passed. It was violated. Another resolution was passed, and finally, this resolution specifically stated that serious consequences and even military actions would result if it was violated. And it was violated.

It was true as it was said many times in the halls of the UN that if the UN didn't have bite to back up these resolutions, the whole institution of the UN would become meaningless and unworthy of existence.

This could not stand. (I think the UN is a good thing and should exist. Do you?)

And, in the end, the nations that finally decided to vote against sending in troops turned out to be in cahoots with Saddam's "oil for food" scam.

I find it interesting when people bring up the legality of the invasion and the argument that it went against the UN. One of the outspoken opponents of the invasion was China. THis was happening when the Chinese Intellectuals were going to universities throughout China and protesting FOR the US invasion of Iraq. I saved the program on National Public Radio in an audio file in case you doubt it.

I enjoy or debates and discussions, by the way. You sharpen my skills I think and help me to see other angles of viewing a subject. I am serious.