That’s the cost of the war in Iraq, according to a Nobel Laureate economist. He went on to explain what that money could be doing instead, which seems a bit silly to me; it would be easier to list what you couldn’t do. And right now I can’t think of anything for that list.
One of the classic responses to this at the moment seems to be to point out the cost of not taking action. Putting aside the slight problem of logic involved (no Al Qaida in Iraq before the war, WMD, blah blah), I’m actually ready to concede this point, if well made. But for all the accounts I’ve seen making the point, none have actually then actually stated that cost.
4 Comments
I presume he means over the 5 years of war which would be less than 5% of our GDP over the same period? We spend about 2.5% of our GDP at Wal Mart each year.
That’s not to say that opportunity costs should be ignored. For instance the opportunity costs of all those programs you favor.
And if we took all of the spending at Wal-Mart out of the economy, twice over, we’d think it a disaster. Or to put it another way, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
You’d be surprised at how few programs I favor – a pure guess, but I’d say that if you ran the programs I favored and cut those I don’t, the government’s budget would drop noticeably.
For you I’d start with eliminating NHS (I’m sure there’s more that roughly equals the list for the US). For the US I’d start with eliminating Social Security and Medicare (just make them optional), and the departments of Education and Agriculture.
Well I don’t think I’d get rid of either of our Depts of Ag, but in each case I think budgets could be shrunk down to a few million each – I’d say it’s a good idea for government to be keeping an eye on issues surrounding food (give them the F out of FDA) – but either way we can both save a few billion there.
Similarly I wouldn’t abolish Social Security in either country, but I’d shrink it heavily. I think having a safey net is an excellent job for government, but it should be no more than that – living on benefits means you won’t actually starve, but no more than that. That saves money, encourages work, and focuses government on a specific defined task, which is so often lacking.
As to the NHS – well, it gives as good value for money as the alternative I’ve lived under, so I don’t see a case there. Perhaps we could get rid of our Departments of Defense though; the need for a robust defense is such a no-brainer that people will be happy to organize and contribute to private protection, and if there’s a field that demands the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector, surely it’s this one.