Nobel Economist & Harvard Budget Expert: Iraq War Cost at $1-2 Trillion

[Clara T]

The Cost of The War
By Pascal Riche | bio
From: Foreign Affairs
Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes plan to present this week a paper  estimating the cost of the Iraq War at between $1-2 trillion. This is far higher than earlier estimates of $100-200 billion.

Here is their statement:

Jan 05, 2006 -- 11:05:10 AM EST

NEW STUDY SUGGESTS ECONOMIC COST OF IRAQ WAR MUCH LARGER THAN PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED

A new study by two leading academic experts suggests that the costs of the Iraq war will be substantially higher than previously reckoned. In a paper presented to this week’s Allied Social Sciences Association annual meeting in Boston MA., Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes and Columbia University Professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz calculate that the war is likely to cost the United States a minimum of nearly one trillion dollars and potentially over $2 trillion.

The study expands on traditional budgetary estimates by including costs such as lifetime disability and health care for the over16,000 injured, one fifth of whom have serious brain or spinal injuries. It then goes on to analyze the costs to the economy, including the economic value of lives lost and the impact of factors such as higher oil prices that can be partly attributed to the conflict in Iraq. The paper also calculates the impact on the economy if a proportion of the money spent on the Iraq war were spent in other ways, including on investments in the United States

“Shortly before the war, when Administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, Administration spokesmen quickly distanced themselves from those numbers,” points out Professor Stiglitz. “But in retrospect, it appears that Lindsey’s numbers represented a gross underestimate of the actual costs.” 

The Allied Social Sciences Association meeting is attended by the nation’s leading economists and social scientists. It is sponsored jointly by the American Economic Association and the Economists for Peace and Security.


  http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/5/11510/30624

[autorank]

1. Two words: IMPEACHMENT NOW

Outstanding and RECOMKMENDED

[Inland]

2. But think how much it would have been if we hadn't skimped on body armor

Big savings there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2353961

[gristy]

3. Ah, but the authors fail to account for the money saved by stopping Saddam

from attacking us with his WMDs!

















Umm. What? Huh?.....


















Well, ummmmm...















Nevermind...

[Inland]

8. There is SOME point to that, however.....

The strategy that I wanted, for example, of containment and permanent inspections would have cost something, too. It's merely a lot less in dollars, and lives, and damage to world standing and our military and I suspect even less as far as Iraqis are concerende, although that's a tough call.

Somebody added up the cost of keeping tons of troops in Kuwait and Saudi, once. At the time, it seemed like a big number, like the cost of the Medicare drug program.

[Clara T]

4. That's a lot of health care

[sakabatou]

5. Holy shit...

That's a lot of money.

[leftchick]

6. condi: We could not afford to stand by and let saddam become

a threat to us.

fuck you condi.

[Clara T]

7. kick for info