24 January 2006
Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Iraq War
Louis Uchitelle presented in the 15 January 2006 New York Times convincing results of economic analyses done by experts across the political spectrum to show that the Iraq war has not passed their tests for bringing benefits to American society that outweigh its costs. And yet, someone must have done the math that came out with a positive result. Who could that have been? What was the calculation?
The budgetary costs that Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes tallied are the mirror image of the revenue they represent for government suppliers. And you can be sure that all equipment and arms that have been destroyed in executing our war on Iraq will be replaced in order to maintain and improve readiness to fight the next campaign in the war on terror.
What appears as budgetary costs to taxpayers constitutes income for those suppliers. It is those suppliers who fund re-election of the government decision makers who must convince voters that deficit financing is necessary to protect their security. The “truthiness” of that claim defies academic analysis, but forms the basis for selling the public on government policies that generate lucrative business opportunities for the “military industrial complex.” Its specter is still with us and apparently more dominant than ever.
Louis Uchitelle presented in the 15 January 2006 New York Times convincing results of economic analyses done by experts across the political spectrum to show that the Iraq war has not passed their tests for bringing benefits to American society that outweigh its costs. And yet, someone must have done the math that came out with a positive result. Who could that have been? What was the calculation?
The budgetary costs that Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes tallied are the mirror image of the revenue they represent for government suppliers. And you can be sure that all equipment and arms that have been destroyed in executing our war on Iraq will be replaced in order to maintain and improve readiness to fight the next campaign in the war on terror.
What appears as budgetary costs to taxpayers constitutes income for those suppliers. It is those suppliers who fund re-election of the government decision makers who must convince voters that deficit financing is necessary to protect their security. The “truthiness” of that claim defies academic analysis, but forms the basis for selling the public on government policies that generate lucrative business opportunities for the “military industrial complex.” Its specter is still with us and apparently more dominant than ever.
Comments:
Post a Comment
