Reply
Wed 22 Feb, 2006 01:59 am
Total economical outgoings for Iraqi and Afghan wars made by American experts
American community begins to realize not only political, human and moral losses suffered during USA "peacemaking mission" in Iraq and Afghanistan but analyses seriously its economical outgoings either.
The most interest arouses economical research of joint USA economics outgoings in Iraqi and Afghan wars made by 2001 Nobel Prize Winner Josef E. Stiglitz, former adviser to President B. Clinton on economical policy by the way. He values them at 2 billion USA dollars.
His research is based on reliable data of both nongovernmental and official organizations.
According Stiglitz's investigation Pentagon irrevocable losses of weapons and equipment during 2005 are enormous and they amount in terms of numbers to:
1 armour - 803 unit;
2 planes - 1 unit;
2 helicopters - 80 units;
3 pilotless vehicles - 41 unit.
In all tanks, Armoured Personnel Carriers (APC), Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV), transport planes, fighting and transport-fighting helicopters, pilotless vehicles - 925 units.
Of course owing to his membership of ruling party Stiglitz used cunning a little and equalized costs of tank, APC, plane and helicopter in $1 million for unit (that's wrong for certain but let's count by depreciated cost). Despite this according the scientist's data USA financial losses are no less than $ 925 millions.
In his further reasoning researcher supposes that Pentagon will compensate for the loss of part of annihilated equipment from its reserve and National Guards' warehouses and will order to industry about third part of it.
According rough estimate state explicit costs of losses recovery will amount to:
4 $2,5-3.0 billion - for purchase of military equipment from armament corporations;
5 $1,5 billion - depreciated cost of weapons and equipment transmitted from warehouses.
Thus let's count. Just for a year total cost of equipment required for amends of US combat losses in Iraq and Afghanistan is $4,0-5,0 billion.
Total expenditure will be at least $350 billion for 2005.
It includes expenses for material and technical forces supplying, money allowances payment to military personnel (about $160 thousand), insurance to families of dead (2808), to injured (8462), to ill (above 20 thousand), rotation of military men (every 3 months it's necessary to bring from mainland or from European military bases by air or sea transport into Iraq and Afghanistan (about 50 thousand soldiers).
US Department of veterans affairs poured oil on the flames. According its estimation number of military men and veterans receiving payments for shock has increased seven times and came to 215,9 thousand men since wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had begun. Money equivalent is $4,5 billions. For comparison in 1999 such payments came to $1,7 billion.
In addition to these facts it is necessary to say that as a result of frequent raise of oil prices (from $12-15 in 2001 to $65 and more for barrel in 2005) US economics damage are not billions but trillions US dollars.
And spiritual injury is irreplaceable.
Besides of purely military inputs it is essential to add rent of military infrastructure in European and Central Asian states, "compensatory" damage to coalition member countries and payment of maintenance costs for their forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is more $1,0-1,5 billion.
That is why such we can say that 2 and more billions dollars of total economical outgoings for Iraqi and Afghan wars made by American experts are quite real and appropriate figures.
Per se in spite of his membership of Democratic Party J. Stiglitz had foretold collapse of USA economics, failure of White House foreign policy and violent making of important political decisions by Bush's government.
This calculation does not appear to mention how many millions of barrels of oil have been taken out of Iraq.
In addition to this massive oil profit, there seems to be no mention of the fact that the USA has ensured (for now) that oil is still purchased in dollars, thereby delaying the terrible financial "run" that will probably happen when the world's oil producers decide to accept other currencies (euro's).
So....the people who look after the "bottom line" of America's ledger book have done a pretty efficient job so far. The trouble is, it seems that the bottom line is ALL they care about.
How much money did the event's on September 11th cost the United States? A few billion dollars is the proverbial drop in the bucket in comparison... which simply returns the subject to "Do you believe these military actions are an effective way to reduce future terrorism?". There's more than a few threads about that.
OCCOM BILL wrote:How much money did the event's on September 11th cost the United States?
In direct costs (compensation to victims and survivors, losses to buildings and equipment, etc.)? Compared to the costs of the war in Iraq, probably not that much. Indirect costs (the reaction to 9/11) have been substantially larger, but then if you're lumping the costs of the war in Iraq with those indirect costs, comparison is impossible.
OCCOM BILL wrote:A few billion dollars is the proverbial drop in the bucket in comparison... which simply returns the subject to "Do you believe these military actions are an effective way to reduce future terrorism?". There's more than a few threads about that.
Why would you bring up 9/11 in a thread regarding the war in Iraq? Are you suggesting that the former has something to do with the latter?
joefromchicago wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:How much money did the event's on September 11th cost the United States?
In direct costs (compensation to victims and survivors, losses to buildings and equipment, etc.)? Compared to the costs of the war in Iraq, probably not that much. Indirect costs (the reaction to 9/11) have been substantially larger, but then if you're lumping the costs of the war in Iraq with those indirect costs, comparison is impossible.
With or without the inclusion of the wars; the economic impact was enormous. I wouldn't know where to begin to itemize it; but feel comfortable with the assertion that the wars were
not the biggest factor of this enormity.
joefromchicago wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:A few billion dollars is the proverbial drop in the bucket in comparison... which simply returns the subject to "Do you believe these military actions are an effective way to reduce future terrorism?". There's more than a few threads about that.
Why would you bring up 9/11 in a thread regarding the war in Iraq? Are you suggesting that the former has something to do with the latter?
No. I'm suggesting the latter had something to do with the former. I think you probably remember Tony Blair's brilliant speech that detailed how September 11th forever changed his perspective on Middle East affairs. I concurred then and do now.
Now you can point out PNAC motivations before the fact; but I'll only counter with the opinion that the
fact lends support to the opinions of the PNAC. These problems didn't develop because Bush was elected and they won't evaporate because he is gone. We'll never agree on the
strategery being employed now, but we should be able to agree that the problems exist irregardless of the chosen guesstimate for a cure.
OCCOM BILL wrote:With or without the inclusion of the wars; the economic impact was enormous. I wouldn't know where to begin to itemize it; but feel comfortable with the assertion that the wars were not the biggest factor of this enormity.
Well, I wouldn't know where to begin to itemize all of the costs that could be tied indirectly to 9/11 either, but it was your comparison, not mine, so I also don't feel obligated to come up with an estimate.
OCCOM BILL wrote:No. I'm suggesting the latter had something to do with the former. I think you probably remember Tony Blair's brilliant speech that detailed how September 11th forever changed his perspective on Middle East affairs. I concurred then and do now.
I don't remember any Tony Blair speeches, just as I try to forget any George W. Bush speeches.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Now you can point out PNAC motivations before the fact; but I'll only counter with the opinion that the fact lends support to the opinions of the PNAC. These problems didn't develop because Bush was elected and they won't evaporate because he is gone. We'll never agree on the strategery being employed now, but we should be able to agree that the problems exist irregardless of the chosen guesstimate for a cure.
I won't bring up the PNAC -- that's not my gig. In any event, this isn't about the PNAC, this is about a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. What's the link?
Link isn't the word I'd choose, Joe. Relation would be better. The events of September 11th brought home the stark reality that terrorism can and will be perpetrated on our soil. This revelation served as something of an eye-opener that our then current policies regarding the ME were in fact dangerous to citizens all around the world, including here.
While we'll no doubt disagree whether our policy change will prove beneficial in the long run; that should answer your question as to the connection between the two events. I wish I had stored the Blair speech I referenced somewhere retrievable as I believe he did a much better job of articulating my thoughts than I ever could myself. Rest assured, the speech came LONG after I came to my conclusions, so don't go thinking of me as sheeple.
I am a little surprised to see you group Tony Blair in with Bush. In a fair world, on an even playing surface, I don't think Bush would be trusted to launder Blair's socks. I find him the most impressive politician in the business today.
OCCOM BILL wrote:How much money did the event's on September 11th cost the United States? A few billion dollars is the proverbial drop in the bucket in comparison... which simply returns the subject to "Do you believe these military actions are an effective way to reduce future terrorism?". There's more than a few threads about that.
Please inform us how much you think it cost since a few billions is a drop in the bucket?
I am always curious how people come up with their magical "more than we can count" figure.
What unhistorically large growth in GDP would have happened without 9/11 and how could the growth required to give us hundreds of billions if not trillions lost not have created run away inflation? The claim is absurd that the economy lost hundreds of billions of dollars. We would have had interest rates at 10% to keep inflation in check.
Start with the enormous hit the travel industry suffered and then mosey on over to Wall Street records for starters. I'll grant you Wall Street was heading for an adjustment of some kind, anyway, but it would be foolish to deny the tremendous, though un-measurable, roll September 11th played in its massive decline. Airlines and related travel industries like cruises, hotels, theme parks and all manner of hospitality industries are still recovering to this day. Interest rates were kept low artificially by Greenspan and enormous levels of debt. The American economy is proving resilient; but I don't see how you can deny the enormity of the hit it suffered. South and Central Florida, for instance went from boom-town type atmospheres to a recession suffering seas of unemployment almost overnight. Since an inordinate percentage of South Florida's working Class are classified 1099-independents, again it would prove nearly impossible to calculate the losses. I feel no need whatsoever to try and do so and remain confident that my assertion is not only NOT absurd, but obvious to any who view the entirety of the effects in a rational non-partisan manner.
Quote:After navigating through some dismal 9/11 and recession-induced doldrums, the U.S. hotel industry posted record revenues for 2004.
Hotels are still recovering? Hmm... not according to the industry.
2005 - was set to have record profits for hotels. I haven't found final numbers for 2005. The middle of the year reports show large profits and higher room rates on high hotel demand. (Before Katrina filled all those rooms.)
Carnival Cruise lines had record profits last quarter.
Their stock is at $52 vs $30 in 2001. Their dividend is $.25 per quarter vs $.105 per quarter for all of 2000 and 2001. Hardly a company that is in recovery mode.
This from a Feb 6th story on Disney
Quote:The Walt Disney Co. boosted sales and profits in the last quarter, aided by improved attendance at the company's Orlando-area theme parks and resorts, company officials said Monday.
Was the travel industry hurt? Yes.
Was it Hundreds of Billions of Dollars? Not until you show me some numbers.
The problem is that economics says that people spend money on one thing or another. Just because they stop spending on one area doesn't mean the the economy is showing a large loss of money. People still spent money after 9/11. The economy still grew. There was not money lost, it was just spent elsewhere.
I stand corrected on the "recovering" part of my argument. I hadn't looked in on it quite a while and falsely assumed wrong. However, if the target price is "hundreds of millions" I've still little doubt in my assessment. People don't spend money they don't earn and the travel industry was decimated after September 11th. The cruise lines took it even worse and so did the airlines. When tickets stop selling; airlines lay off employees, travel agencies go out of business, forcing the unfortunate employees of each to fire the pool cleaners and maids who in turn buy less groceries and get their nail done less often and so on and so forth. The biggest malls in South Florida were reminiscent of a ghost town leading up to Christmas's of 2002 and 2003, despite slashing their prices further than I've ever seen. I know... I was there.
Tackle number 2 if you don't find that compelling enough. How much money was lost in the stock market do you suppose? And, how much in direct relation to the fears after September 11th? We're easily talking about hundreds of billions here, any way you slice it. Between 1/15/2000 and 10/9/2002 the New York Stock Exchange alone fell from 11,792.98 to 7,286.27 or 37.8 percent. We're talking several trillion dollars here. Surely you'll concede September 11th had to have accounted for at least 10 percent of that crash?... or
hundreds of billions of dollars. Another thing you might want to consider is how small of a percentage hundreds of billions is in a 14 digit economy.
100 billion in a 10 trillion economy is 1%. Growth of 2% is pretty normal. 3% is high. 4% is so fast it requires braking.
Interesting considering ours was 4.4% last year. I see no need for braking.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Link isn't the word I'd choose, Joe. Relation would be better. The events of September 11th brought home the stark reality that terrorism can and will be perpetrated on our soil. This revelation served as something of an eye-opener that our then current policies regarding the ME were in fact dangerous to citizens all around the world, including here.
Well, then 9/11 can be "related" to practically everything.
OCCOM BILL wrote:While we'll no doubt disagree whether our policy change will prove beneficial in the long run; that should answer your question as to the connection between the two events.
It certainly shows how tenuous the connection need be in order for some people to justify a war.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I wish I had stored the Blair speech I referenced somewhere retrievable as I believe he did a much better job of articulating my thoughts than I ever could myself. Rest assured, the speech came LONG after I came to my conclusions, so don't go thinking of me as sheeple.
You must have me confused with someone else,
O'Bill. I've never gone on about the PNAC and I've never once talked about "sheeple."
OCCOM BILL wrote:I am a little surprised to see you group Tony Blair in with Bush. In a fair world, on an even playing surface, I don't think Bush would be trusted to launder Blair's socks. I find him the most impressive politician in the business today.
Not living in the UK, I have only a vague notion of Tony Blair's domestic policy. I have a much better idea of his foreign policy, and I think it's every bit as disastrous as Bush's.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Interesting considering ours was 4.4% last year. I see no need for braking.
Why do you think the Fed has been raising the interest rates the last year and a half?
joefromchicago wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:While we'll no doubt disagree whether our policy change will prove beneficial in the long run; that should answer your question as to the connection between the two events.
It certainly shows how tenuous the connection need be in order for some people to justify a war.
Don't count me in that group. In my book; Clinton's "Dessert Fox" shouldn't have been called off in the 11th hour back in 1998. Saddam's continued systematic lack of cooperation with the UN justified war then.
joefromchicago wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote: I am a little surprised to see you group Tony Blair in with Bush. In a fair world, on an even playing surface, I don't think Bush would be trusted to launder Blair's socks. I find him the most impressive politician in the business today.
Not living in the UK, I have only a vague notion of Tony Blair's domestic policy. I have a much better idea of his foreign policy, and I think it's every bit as disastrous as Bush's.
If you should ever be flipping through the channels some night and get an opportunity to watch Tony field questions on the floor of the House of Commons; watch it. Bush would melt down in a matter of minutes under that pressure, where Tony takes on seemingly half of them at once... and makes
them all look foolish. Set aside his politics, and I assure you; you would be impressed. Think Clinton (Bill of course) times 5. Your young Senator seems to have the charismatic potential to become such a leader. I wonder if he'll be tainted before he gets his chance.
parados wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote: Interesting considering ours was 4.4% last year. I see no need for braking.
Why do you think the Fed has been raising the interest rates the last year and a half?
I'm no economist; but my layman's answer is; to creep back up to reality because it was dropped to artificial lows in an attempt to boost our economy. That having been accomplished; it's time to make the correction. Which is of course paramount because the next time we take a big hit (and we will) they're going to need to play the low rate game all over again.
Hey, Joefromchicago. Do me a favor and
Click Here
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace