In response to this post, Spyderhawk23 comments:
With the economy as bad as it is in the USA, we needed something like this war. Do not get me wrong, I do not like our president. He is doing what he thinks is right. In a sense he is right by trying to get our economy out of the gutter (which he put us in anyway), but on the other side, would you want a person getting involved in your business? No. We have torn apart Iraq, and found nothing, Now it is our job to rebuild Iraq. Not in our image, we have to rebuild like the Iraqi population wants us to.
and
BTW, you can only save 44.03808 Iraqs with the cost of the WW2 estimate of $20,388.
I started to respond in the comments section, but thought the discussion deserved a post of its own.
With the economy as bad as it is in the USA, we needed something like this war.
First, while “bad” is a subjective term, according to NBER, the recession ended in November 2001, and the economy had been growing pretty steadily for 17 months prior to the war:
The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met yesterday. At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001. The trough marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001 and the beginning of an expansion. The recession lasted 8 months, which is slightly less than average for recessions since World War II.
Second, the proposition that war causes economic growth is fallacious. For example, Henry Hazlitt wrote:
Technological discoveries and advances during a war may, for example, increase individual or national productivity at this point or that, and there may eventually be a net increase in overall productivity. Postwar demand will never produce the precise pattern of prewar demand. But such complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing.
For further discussion, you might read this.
Third, if you think the economy “is” still “bad,” you might want to have a look at the recent economic news.
Do not get me wrong, I do not like our president. He is doing what he thinks is right.
It is, of course, your right to dislike the president. That said, I find it laughable to think that he (or any other president) would send our troops to war for the sake of (fallacious benefits to) the economy.
In a sense he is right by trying to get our economy out of the gutter (which he put us in anyway), but on the other side, would you want a person getting involved in your business? No.
I think it's nearly impossible for any politician to “put” the economy in “the gutter,” and I don't agree that Bush did. Regardless, if, by “in your business,” you mean removing the rule of an oppressive dictator over me, my answer would be “Yes, please.” While there were certainly those who benefited under Saddam Hussein's rule, I think the overall welfare of the Iraqi people has already improved. See here, here and here for opinions from those with a better perspective on this than either of us.
We have torn apart Iraq, and found nothing, Now it is our job to rebuild Iraq. Not in our image, we have to rebuild like the Iraqi population wants us to.
We “tore” Iraq apart only to the extent that doing so was necessary to remove Saddam's regime, and we avoided targeting civilians and vital infrastructure. I disagree that we've "found nothing,” though we're only starting to look. I don't regard it as “our job” to rebuild Iraq, though I know we will try to do so. I certainly don't agree that “we have to rebuild like the Iraqi population wants us to,” but I'm confident that most Iraqis want much of what we seek to help them build. Time shall tell, of course.
BTW, you can only save 44.03808 Iraqs with the cost of the WW2 estimate of $20,388.
What's this pedantry doing in my comments section? Still, I'll stand by my number. $125 billion multiplied by (282,798,000 (the mid-year 2003 middle-series population projection for the U.S. from the Census Bureau) divided by $20,388) equals 46.12548.
In any event, thanks for your comments.
Posted by oscarjr at November 12, 2003 11:35 PM | TrackBack