Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion
Posted by Nat at July 13, 2006 07:15 PM | TrackBackI am surprised that no one has called into question some of the extrapolations in the article. It does make me think of two things;
1) the new class of needy folk who will be supported by our tax dollars for the rest of their lives...it is a volunteer army, and their risky behavior resulted in their dependent condition. Are they worthy of our charity? Should my money be forcibly taken from me, even though I opposed our going to this war?
b) The prevalent past wisdom has been that wars are good for the economy, which I always thought was a bit like a dog chasing it's tail: Tax dollars going to big contractors who then pay a bit of it back in taxes has been said to curb recessions and stimulate growth. The studies referred to seem to suggest we were lied to.
I wonder what the cost in dollars and U.S. lives would have been had we left Saddam there? ( again in the long term way these folks have crafted their evaluation)
Posted by: steve at July 16, 2006 10:33 AMGood question.
Posted by: Nat at July 29, 2006 06:53 PM