Bob Herbert of NYT (behind the scum-sucking pay wall) finally gives some MSM play to an academic study, noted on this blog when it came out months ago, regarding the real cost of the Iraq war — now measurable in the trillions. Herbert says:
Now comes a study by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University, and a colleague, Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, that estimates the “true costs” of the war at more than $1 trillion, and possibly more than $2 trillion.…In an interview, Mr. Stiglitz said that about $560 billion, which is a little more than half of the study’s conservative estimate of the cost of the war, would have been enough to “fix” Social Security for the next 75 years. If one were thinking in terms of promoting democracy in the Middle East, he said, the money being spent on the war would have been enough to finance a “mega-mega-mega-Marshall Plan,” which would have been “so much more” effective than the invasion of Iraq.
I kind of, sort of, almost, partly, and not too enthusiastically take exception to the "scum sucking paywall" part of your post.
I haven't paid the forty nine bucks. Nor will I until they give us ARCHIVES. I want history. The New York Times has it, but why won't they give it to us? I want it all the way back to the beginning.
It's technologically feasible with scanners and a little bit of labor and editing.
In the meantime, until I can read the old book reviews, opinions, etc, they aren't getting a dime from me. There are bootleg sites that give us all the latest stuff, but I want substance for my money.
I know where to get Krugman and Herbert a few days late (the two guys besides Rich I'm willing to pay for), but I want the old stuff, back when they had the best of the best reporters.
Oh well, perhaps this is probably a worthless exercise, but I'm hoping upon hope that someone from the Times bothers to read comments on this somewhat obscure weblog. It can't hurt I guess.
Further reflection leads me to conclude that the "scum sucking paywall" of the New York Times is quite a bargain when compared to the "scum sucking" Iraq quagmire, of which your children, their children and their children's children will be paying for in the decades to come.
Posted by: Buck on March 23, 2006 9:56 PM
And those economists can only zero in on the measurable costs. I'm concerned equally about the immeasurable costs such as lost admiration for the US, troops who come home and commit suicide or worse, and the mentally ill troops sent back to Iraq to name a few.
Posted by: spiiderweb on March 23, 2006 10:41 PMAnd the other immeasurable cost -- all the terrorists we're creating every time we kill a few more civilians (whether on purpose or as collateral damage). This war has probably set back peace in the Middle East by 500 years. Fortunately, much sooner the world will run out of oil, and we'll all be scrambling, Arabs and Westerners alike, to stay warm and fed. That may take everyone's mind off war, or at least make it more difficult.
Imagine if a small part of the billions spent on Iraq had been used to ease the transition from the oil economy to whatever comes next. I suppose we still have time to tax the windfall profits of the oil companies and use that for the transition, but that won't happen until 2009 -- and probably not then if Dieboldt reigns.
Posted by: Lucy at the House of Joy & Truckstop on March 24, 2006 1:06 AMChomsky once said, talking about about economic inequality if memory serves, that if economics were a real science it would study such issues. The fact that it doesn't is, as the therapists say, diagnostic.
And Lucy's right about the costs. If you haven't read Ted Rall's book, To Afghanistan & Back, I recommend it. He hung out there for a few months trying to be a war correspondent. Tough job. His observations fits Lucy's.
Posted by: Chuck Dupree (Belisarius) on March 24, 2006 5:50 AM