News The Cost of War: Examining the Economic Impact of Modern Conflicts

[Desiree]

What do these numbers tell you?

http://costofwar.com/
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

 

[lisab]

The second link is broken. The first link makes me sad.

 

[Desiree]

The second link is broken. The first link makes me sad.

Thanks, fixed it.

 

[lisab]

Thanks, fixed it.

OK now both links make me sad.

I wish we'd get back to a pay-go system.

 

[estro]

These arbitrary numbers really should make us all think.

 

[waht]

1 trillion cost of war in 10 years is insignificant compared to the size of US economy. All it did is stimulated the military-industrial complex which keeps the US on cutting edge.

The biggest drains every year are social security, health, and medicare...

 

[Desiree]

1 trillion cost of war in 10 years is insignificant compared to the size of US economy. All it did is stimulated the military-industrial complex which keeps the US on cutting edge.

I don't think you realize the devastating impact of such spendings and debts on your children's future and what better things could have been done with 1 trillion dollars.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't think you realize the devastating impact of such spendings and debts on your children's future and what better things could have been done with 1 trillion dollars.

http://www.cosmoloan.com/money-mana...y-with-a-trillion-dollars.html#comment-65009"

With a trillion dollars you could buy out America’s supply of bacon for the next 500 years.

With a trillion dollars you could own and operate your own space program with an annual budget of $20 billion for the next 50 years. That’s $2 billion more than NASA spends each year.

And my favorite: You could supply every household in the US with 2240 watts of solar panels. Yielding roughly 9 kwh per day, saving each of us only about $1 per day, but multiplied by 112,000,000 households and 365.242198781 days per year, we'd collectively save $40 billion dollars a year and our trillion dollars would be paid back in 25 years. Not counting installation, taxes, delivery, and inspection fees.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1 trillion cost of war in 10 years is insignificant compared to the size of US economy. All it did is stimulated the military-industrial complex which keeps the US on cutting edge.

Really, that's ALL it did. Tell that to my nephew who had to clean up the body parts from a family that was killed by mistake. Oh yes, never mind, he's probably too drunk to listen.

 

[Cyrus]

Tell's me you lack critical thinking skills, because all you've posted are numbers.

What does this number mean to you?2389348967o659560845903445985690569560490823948234908486849680980250892505409468905

<whistles> wheeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwww that's a big number!

 

[waht]

Really, that's ALL it did. Tell that to my nephew who had to clean up the body parts from a family that was killed by mistake. Oh yes, never mind, he's probably too drunk to listen.

This thread is about the cost of war in relation US debt - ALL is in terms of economy, and not casualties, nor Cheney.

 

[Cyrus]

1 trillion cost of war in 10 years is insignificant compared to the size of US economy. All it did is stimulated the military-industrial complex which keeps the US on cutting edge.

The biggest drains every year are social security, health, and medicare...

This is EXACTLY correct.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think you realize the devastating impact of such spendings and debts on your children's future and what better things could have been done with 1 trillion dollars.

That military spending doesn't go into a black hole, though: it is mostly spent on the salaries of our military and the compaanies who make the equipment.

It is basically the same type of economic stimulus that our government spent an equal amount of money on in the past year. So while it isn't great that we spent a trillion dollars on the wars over 9 years, it is a lot worse that we spent a trillion dollars on stimulus in the past year.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We don't have to attack a country in order to have a strong military. The point that B justifies A is falacious. How much bang did we get for the buck? Did we get a trillion dollars worth of development? Or was most of that money wasted fighting a war that wasn't needed? I would bet any payoff is on the order of one part in a thousand, or less.

Now if your point is that we have $100 billion a year to waste, then I have a great deal on some swamp land for you.

Btw, the interest on our national debt is about 160 billion per year. If we didn't have to pay interest, there wouldn't be a problem, so clearly 100 billion per year is significant. 100 billion less per year is the equivalent of eliminating over 60% of our national debt.

How about paying for three years of medicaid?

What if all of that money has been dumped into the US economy for productive reasons, rather than for building bombs, and fueling tanks and aircraft? How much more benefit do we derive per dollar spent, from a bridge, than we do a truckload of bombs?

I fail to follow the logic that it was advantageous to fight an unnecessary war, when we could have been helping Americans, or investing in the US infrastructure or industry. Even viewing this from a purely militaristic point of view, I would bet that one could develop a pretty cool weapon for a trillion dollars.

btw, I never opposed the war in Afghanistan, just Iraq. In the former case, I don't think we had a choice. I also strongly support the attacks in the hills of Pakistan, using drones. As promised, Obama is no wimp. He's just smart.

 

[waht]

How much bang did we get for the buck? Did we get a trillion dollars worth of development?

In a sense yes. Most companies that made money in the war reinvest it in themselves (minus CEO bonuses) and compete with other companies for contracts. And where there is competition there is innovation.

Btw, the interest on our national debt is about 160 billion per year. If we didn't have to pay interest, there wouldn't be a problem, so clearly 100 billion per year is significant. 100 billion less per year is the equivalent of eliminating over 60% of our national debt.

The US has lots of other internal black holes, and only feeding them more won't solve the problem.

What if all of that money has been dumped into the US economy for productive reasons, rather than for building bombs, and fueling tanks and aircraft?

And building bombs, and aircrafts? Well that's what superpowers do. Among many other things it gives them a high position when dealing with national interests that, in a sense, feedback to the economy.

 

[Desiree]

Tell's me you lack critical thinking skills, because all you've posted are numbers.

First of all, I didn't start an argument based on those numbers, and second of all, as the title reads: "think for a moment..."

So what makes you think I lack critical thinking skills?

 

[Cyrus]

First of all, I didn't start an argument based on those numbers, and second of all, as the title reads: "think for a moment..."

So what makes you think I lack critical thinking skills?

Because you did not think before posting these sources - what so ever!

What's you're premise in starting this thread? This reeks of anti-war nonsense. Should I run around with my hands in the air at the sight of big scary numbers, that lack any context?

To answer your question: the numbers tell me exactly what they report, and nothing more.

 

[russ_watters]

We don't have to attack a country in order to have a strong military.

Granted! But this has nothing to do with the OP, which, as was pointed out to you before, is about money.

How much bang did we get for the buck? Did we get a trillion dollars worth of development? Or was most of that money wasted fighting a war that wasn't needed? I would bet any payoff is on the order of one part in a thousand, or less.

Then that'd be a losing bet. Where do you think the money actually goes that the payoff could be 1:1000? Heck, if we have 100,000 troops employed at an average salary of $30,000 apiece, that would be $27 billion right there, or just under 3%.

It was pretty easy to debunk that 1:1000 rediculousness with just one simple example of where the money goes.

What if all of that money has been dumped into the US economy for productive reasons, rather than for building bombs, and fueling tanks and aircraft? How much more benefit do we derive per dollar spent, from a bridge, than we do a truckload of bombs?

Your point, so you tell me. I'll give it a shot, though: if the societal benefit to building a bridge was huge on its own, we wouldn't need to use stimulus spending to build it. The stimulus spending was sold by Obama as a way to create jobs, not for the societal benefit of what those jobs were doing. In that sense, money spent building a bomb is exactly equivalent to money spent building a bridge.

I fail to follow the logic that it was advantageous to fight an unnecessary war...

...probably because no one made such an argument!

Even viewing this from a purely militaristic point of view, I would bet that one could develop a pretty cool weapon for a trillion dollars.

Indeed we could. But for the fifth or sixth time now, the OP was about money! Developing a weapon is still expensive and it is still money that we are spending that we don't have. We shouldn't be spending it: not on developing new weapons, not on wars, and not on "economic stimulus", all of which are functionally equivalent.

 

[russ_watters]

First of all, I didn't start an argument based on those numbers, and second of all, as the title reads: "think for a moment..."

So what makes you think I lack critical thinking skills?

Starting a thread with an open-ended question leaves us to guess what your point was. Failing to ever provide analysis makes one question your critical thinking skills.

 

[Phrak]

Thread Locked; mentors out of control.

Oh, nevermind, I can't lock a thread. Carry on.

 

[Cyrus]

Preemptive Thread reopened

It's good to be king.

 

[Phrak]

Preemptive Thread reopened

It's good to be king.

Haha, Cyrus. Take this: Thread Locked

Darned locking mechanism. Must be jammed...

 

[Cyrus]

Haha, Cyrus. Take this: Thread Locked

Darned locking mechanism. Must be jammed...

Pull back on the charging handle on the upper receiver.

 

[OmCheeto]

hmmm... Let's give Desiree a short lesson in U.S. economics.

A. Whenever you see a really big number, chop off the last 9 digits. A $trillion$ becomes $1000. Yay!
B. Then multiply by 3. A thousand becomes $3000. boo...
C. Divide that number by the days since that debt was incurred: $3000/3000 days = $1/day. yay!

steps A and B give you the cost per US citizen.

step C tells me that the cost of the two wars was only a dollar per day per person.

Now as Lisab stated, it would be really nice if we could pay as we go. Then it probably wouldn't hurt so much, and we all wouldn't have to get depressed about looking at such big scary numbers.

But we really only have ourselves to blame. Who do we always vote for? The guy that's going to raise our taxes $365 a year to pay for two wars? Or the guy that starts two wars and simultaneously cuts taxes?

Now that's something to think about.

 

[Pattonias]

We don't have to attack a country in order to have a strong military. The point that B justifies A is falacious. How much bang did we get for the buck? Did we get a trillion dollars worth of development? Or was most of that money wasted fighting a war that wasn't needed? I would bet any payoff is on the order of one part in a thousand, or less.

I believe the new US national defence strategy should be that whenever the US is attacked we shoud file for sanctions in the UN and dedicate the majority of our defence budget to building bridges and investing in solar panels.

 

[Cyrus]

I believe the new US national defence strategy should be that whenever the US is attacked we shoud file for sanctions in the UN and dedicate the majority of our defence budget to building bridges and investing in solar panels.

Nonsense.

 

[Pattonias]

Nonsense.

I agree.

 

[OmCheeto]

I believe the new US national defence strategy should be that whenever the US is attacked we shoud file for sanctions in the UN and dedicate the majority of our defence budget to building bridges and investing in solar panels.

I would raise the federal gasoline tax every time we go to war for oil, to pay for such wars.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_nus_a.htm" , yields roughly a $800 million dollars, which over the course of 3000 days gives: 2.4 trillion dollars.

Ouch! We would've had to raise gas taxes to 42% to pay for the wars.

So the current $2.80/gal would be at $4. Roughly the peak here in the states in July of 2008. I remember that. Dreadfully expensive. But then again, the number of people driving to Walmart for a bag of Doritos did seem to drop off quite a bit.

 

[Pattonias]

If I'm not mistaken, a large portion of the gasoline tax goes to paying to maintain roads.

Interestingly enough, it looks like a portion of the federal gas tax is already directly paying for National Defence. http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Transportation/trans-24.cfm"

 

[Cyrus]

I agree.

Hey, how dare you agree with me! This is supposed to devolve into an epic sh*tfest.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

 

[Count Iblis]

What do these numbers tell you?

http://costofwar.com/
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

It tells me that the US will not attack Iran.

 

[mheslep]

It tells me that the US will not attack Iran.

Maybe so. Then instead of the US, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear sites first, likely leading to Iranian indiscriminate responses against Israel, likely leading to a rapidly widening Middle East conflict.

 

[jreelawg]

Tell's me you lack critical thinking skills, because all you've posted are numbers.

What does this number mean to you?


2389348967o659560845903445985690569560490823948234908486849680980250892505409468905

<whistles> wheeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwww that's a big number!

Are you Glen Beck? Seriously

 

[Cyrus]

Are you Glen Beck? Seriously

Cries, and screams in a hissy fit. GETOFFMYTHREAD!

 

[Count Iblis]

Maybe so. Then instead of the US, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear sites first, likely leading to Iranian indiscriminate responses against Israel, likely leading to a rapidly widening Middle East conflict.

I've read that Iran's best strategy would be not to attack Israel but instead attack the Saudi oil installations and the gas installations in Qatar.

 

[mheslep]

I've read that Iran's best strategy would be not to attack Israel but instead attack the Saudi oil installations and the gas installations in Qatar.

Yes I've seen similar propositions, but I think Iran's advantage lies only in the threat it poses to world economics in attacking those fields. There's little military advantage in doing so (none?), and so once done Iran would loose all leverage. A rough parallel is Saddam Hussein's threat against Kuwaiti oil fields and their subsequent destruction by him. The threat was ominous, and once executed the effect horrible (temporarily), but after the fact did nothing to save him or even slow down the Western military coalition.

So today, Iran's threat against the SA and Qatar fields raises the cost of an Israeli attack on Iran, but does nothing for Iran that I can see should Iran actually carry out the threat.

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe so. Then instead of the US, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear sites first, likely leading to Iranian indiscriminate responses against Israel, likely leading to a rapidly widening Middle East conflict.

That sounds like a doable plan to me.

 

[Desiree]

I should have added this link in the first post, but please read this article as this is exactly what I wanted to say on the national debt data:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7826.html

 

[Desiree]

I should have added this link in the first post, but please read this article as this is exactly what I wanted to say on the national debt data:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7826.html

The author of the article is a frequent guest on CNBC and is the author of this book too. I haven't read the book yet, but it must be a good read as it was written before crash of the stock market in Sept/October 2008.

Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse (2007)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470043601/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Phrak]

The author of the article is a frequent guest on CNBC and is the author of this book too. I haven't read the book yet, but it must be a good read as it was written before crash of the stock market in Sept/October 2008.

Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse (2007)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470043601/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Hu? Then he would be late, publishing 7 years after the fact. The stock market hit the wall in March 2000.

 

[Desiree]

Hu? Then he would be late, publishing 7 years after the fact. The stock market hit the wall in March 2000.

My main point was what is in the article, you got that? Not how before/after the fact people like him publish their books, besides how do you know he didn't warn before 2000 that the collapse was coming?

And you must know that "crashes" are the essential part of the stock markets every decade or so...because that's how it works.

 

[OmCheeto]

My main point was what is in the article, you got that?

I read the article. It says that the U.S. Government is running a Ponzi scheme.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7826.html
Dec 16, 2008 - 06:45 PM
By: Peter Schiff
...

The United States Government runs its own balance sheet based on the Ponzi principal as well.

...

Is that your main point? I thought this thread was about the cost of war?

hmmm... what's this?

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read my new book “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse.”

hmmm... thinking, thinking, eyes crossed, brain hurts, steam coming out of ears... Ah ha!

Everyone should buy the book and get rich. Then we could pay off our national debt!

Brilliant.

 

[nismaratwork]

I just thought it said. "Here is my agenda in the technical form of a rhetorical question!"

 

[Desiree]

I read the article. It says that the U.S. Government is running a Ponzi scheme.



Is that your main point?

Exactly, that is my point. When a debt grows so big over a long period of time that the only way to repay it is: 'to rob Peter to pay Paul', then it wouldn't be any different than a Ponzi Scheme and that's what the US national debt has become.

A highly critical 450-page official report into the conduct of the US Securities and Exchange Commission has revealed that the agency was alerted to suspicions surrounding Madoff as early as 1992. But although enforcement staff caught Madoff in "lies and misrepresentations‚" they failed to follow up on inconsistencies, allowing the corrupt fund manager to continue embezzling money until his confession in December 2008.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...off-sec-report

 

[Cyrus]

Exactly, that is my point. When a debt grows so big over a long period of time that the only way to repay it is: 'to rob Peter to pay Paul', then it wouldn't be any different than a Ponzi Scheme and that's what the US national debt has become.

[PLAIN]http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/national-debt-gdp1.gif

I'm not sure how you define "Grows so big over a period of time". Relative to what? Relative to the GDP, you're wrong.

 

[Desiree]

[PLAIN]http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/national-debt-gdp1.gif

I'm not sure how you define "Grows so big over a period of time". Relative to what? Relative to the GDP, you're wrong.

Maybe my wording was ambiguous. But Government just keeps issuing new treasury bonds, notes, "IOU's"...and that means new investors/lenders are needed to keep this afloat. If China, Japan and other main foreign lenders stop lending anymore, then US government will have no choice but to default, because the inflow of money was cut off. Now you tell me, this debt has not turned into a Ponzi scheme? $13 trillion dollars and still counting. Check out the counters in the first post and see if you notice a reduction in the total public debt.

 

[Cyrus]

Maybe my wording was ambiguous. But Government just keeps issuing new treasury bonds, notes, "IOU's"...and that means new investors/lenders are needed to keep this afloat. If China, Japan and other main foreign lenders stop lending anymore, then US government will have no choice but to default, because the inflow of money was cut off. Now you tell me, this debt has not turned into a Ponzi scheme? $13 trillion dollars and still counting. Check out the counters in the first post and see if you notice a reduction in the total public debt.

Yes, I saw your counters - so what. Again, raw numbers are meaningless without a viable metric. Let's say I spend $500k on a Ferrari. Actually, let's say I spend $500,000.00 (since you like big scary numbers). That might be a lot of money for you. But for me, a wall street fat cat billionaire, the Ferrari is chump change. Raw numbers don't tell the whole story.

 

[EnumaElish]

cyrus's graph depicts national debt as a % of national income becoming lower during the vietnam years. Part of the reason was that the economy was growing, but the other reason is that the government was using newly printed greenbacks to finance the war, instead of explicit debt. That led to the inflationary period during the 70's, which further devalued the "real" value of the debt. It took Volcker's team under Reagan to go cold turkey to stop it, which contributed to the 80's recession.

 

[Cyrus]

cyrus's graph depicts national debt as a % of national income becoming lower during the vietnam years. Part of the reason was that the economy was growing, but the other reason is that the government was using newly printed greenbacks to finance the war, instead of explicit debt. That led to the inflationary period during the 70's, which further devalued the "real" value of the debt. It took Volcker's team under Reagan to go cold turkey to stop it, which contributed to the 80's recession.

There was a really good piece on CSPAN radio about the debt of the 70s, and how it was far, far worse than today. Let me see if I can dig it up.

 

[mheslep]

Exactly, that is my point. When a debt grows so big over a long period of time that the only way to repay it is: 'to rob Peter to pay Paul', then it wouldn't be any different than a Ponzi Scheme and that's what the US national debt has become.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...off-sec-report

I'm not sure how you define "Grows so big over a period of time". Relative to what? Relative to the GDP, you're wrong.

Interesting Cyrus, you dropped a word from Desiree's post that makes all the difference: long. The major reason debt/GDP bares watching is because lenders use it as a risk metric in deciding what interest rate they will demand, or whether they will lend at all in the future. The Greek crisis recently emphasized this point. That is, the key is whether or not lenders believe they will continue to be paid back in the long term. Thus war debt, especially for major powers, presents very little risk when it is run up, because wars inevitably come to an end, public sentiment for democracies is overwhelming in agreement to end them as soon as possible. As economists say, war spending, being temporary, is not structural.

Entitlement programs on the other hand such as Greece's early retirement benefits and the US's Medicare tend to have no end, have wide public sentiment to continue them (via robbing Peter to pay Paul as Disiree points out), tend to continually expand, forever as far as I can see, until they either collapse upon themselves or until they cause the state to default on its debt. Entitlement programs are structural. The point of all this is that comparing the US current debt and its trajectory to WWII debt is misleading from the stand point of the lender, the bond holder, the banker. From where they stand, the US has never had this kind of structural debt load in its entire history, not anything close to it.

BTW, updating the chart to this year has the US debt to GDP ratio at 87.5% as of May 2010.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif