Iraq attack
I subscribe to libertarianism more than anything, though I don't wholly subscribe to that political camp either. So it won't come as any great surprise to find out that I'm not anxious to see the United States get into a war with Iraq.
But my convinction is not born of any lofty philosophical goals -- mainly practical ones. A conflict with Iraq is going to cost us a hell of a lot of money -- north of $50 billion and maybe closer to $100 billion, according to some estimates. The U.S. won't recoup most of that cost like it was able to with Desert Storm, which cost us net about $10 billion after getting $50 billion back from our allies. It'll also take us a while to mend our fences with our foreign allies who don't support us. Both of these issues raise very negative economic ramifications for our already ailing economy, and the last thing we need to do is give the Euro any help.
Still, that's not to say that I agree with the jingoistic rhetoric of the left, either. In fact, most of it makes me want to vomit. Jennifer "Buttafly" Bishop has some great insights about what's wrong with this camp, based on her recent experience at an anti-war rally in that bulwark of liberal wackiness, San Francisco.
Comments
Just to get a decent idea of what a "billion" dollars is (with or without the Dr. Evil pinky-to-lip maneuver), let's say I make $50,000 a year. It'd take me ten years to make $500,000. It'd take me twenty years to make a million dollars. It'd take me two thousand years to make a billion dollars, two hundred thousand years to make the $100B that Peter mentions in his post.
Of course no one would expect a single person to work for two hundred thousand years. That'd be insane. The entirety of the USA should share the burden. The last I heard there were about 200M people in the USA. Let's say, for the sake of argument, they all make $50,000 a year. r. In that case, everyone in the USA would have to pay $500 from their own pocket to support this war.
I'm sure you didn't have any other plans for that $500.
Posted by: Corey | March 3, 2003 02:41 PM
Your numbers are a bit off, but you're on the right track. Median income for 2001 in the US was about $42,200, and we have about 281 million people spread across all 50 states.
Your number presumes, of course, that every one of those 200 million or so you talked about would actually be capable of generating income. I'm not sure what the real numbers are, and if anyone can help me with the Census Bureau's obtuse Web site I'd appreciate it. My gut suspicion is that it's probably lower than that, especially when you factor in kids, the poor and the elderly.
But the point is the same -- American taxpayers will be taking it in the arse for a while.
As far as my $500 is concerned, one word: iPod.
Posted by: Flargh | March 3, 2003 03:09 PM
I know my numbers are off, tardo. That's why I said "Let's say, for the sake of argument". Damn.
There are a lot of factors which I kindly left out of my comments above. One of those factors is that no one can give up 100% of their yearly income to pay back a debt, regardless of which debt that is (and 95% of American income already goes to debt, whereas in the 50's that was 50%). Seeing as Americans are already paying about $20,000 apiece during their lifetimes to the national debt as it stands right now, the additional $500 would have to wait... but the money has to come from somewhere so which part of the system has to tank to make it happen?
Posted by: Corey | March 3, 2003 04:23 PM
What makes you guys think we have ANY money for anything? http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Posted by: tokey | March 11, 2003 02:58 PM