[Paleopsych] Re: The failure to calculate the costs of war

[Premise Checker]

I wonder what wars have ever been profitable. The Allies could have 
purchased all real estate, buildings, etc., from the Axis countries in 
World War II and have saved money. I once calculated that the U.S. could 
have bought Vietnam for what it was spending each month on fighting the 
war.

The people don't benefit by having new tax collectors, but the glory of 
kings is enhanced.

Maybe wars were profitable to the looters for a while. Eventually these 
bandits noted that they lands they raided had less to offer the second 
time around and so became what the late Mancur Olson called "stationary 
bandits" and saw to it that they could engage in repeated extraction. They 
would also provide protection from rival bandits. Olson said this was the 
greatest breakthrough in history.

See John V. Denson, _Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories_ for an Old 
Right perspective, which I share, though I concluded a few weeks after 
9/11 that empire is here to stay.

Frank

On 2006-01-11, K.E. opined [message unchanged below]:

> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:58:15 -0500
> From: K.E. <guavaberry at earthlink.net>
> To: checker at panix.com, paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> Subject: The failure to calculate the costs of war
> 
>
> With these costs taken into account, the total macroeconomic costs may
> add up to $750bn and total costs to $1,850bn.
>
> "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
> -Dwight David Eisenhower, U.S. general and 34th president (1890-1969)
>
>
>
>
> Martin Wolf is a respectable economist and chief
> economics commentator at the Financial Times
>
> Martin Wolf: The failure to calculate the costs of war
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/48ad9c0a-820f-11da-aea0-0000779e2340.html
>
>    Before the Iraq war began, Lawrence Lindsey, then president George
> W. Bush's economic adviser, suggested that the costs might reach
> $200bn. The White House promptly fired him. Mr Lindsey was indeed
> wrong. But his error lay in grossly underestimating the costs. The
> administration's estimates of a cost of some $50-$60bn were a fantasy,
> as were Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and much else.
>
> <snip>
>
> So far the government has spent $251bn in hard cash. But the costs
> continue. If the US begins to withdraw troops this year, but maintains
> a diminishing presence for the next five years, the additional cost
> will be at least $200bn, under what Profs Bilmes and Stiglitz call
> their "conservative" option. Under their "moderate" one, the cost
> reaches $271bn, because troops remain until 2015.
>
> <snip>
>
> With these costs taken into account, the total macroeconomic costs may
> add up to $750bn and total costs to $1,850bn.
>
> <snip>
>
> It is possible to argue that the benefits for Iraq, the Middle East
> and the world will outweigh all these costs. But that depends on the
> emergence, in Iraq, of a stable and peaceful democratic order. That
> has not yet been achieved.
>
> Even those who supported the war must draw two lessons. First, the
> exercise of military power is far more expensive than many fondly
> hoped. Second, such policy decisions require a halfway decent analysis
> of the costs and possible consequences. The administration's failure
> to do so was a blunder that will harm the US and the world for years
> to come.
>
> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>
> The Educational CyberPlayGround
> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/
>
> National Children's Folksong Repository
> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/
>
> Hot List of Schools Online and
> Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters
> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/
>
> 7 Hot Site Awards
> New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink,
> USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty
> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> 
>