Faulty Accounting?
From Yahoo News: WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion - roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee.
The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.
Read more...
Fair enough, actually, as an estimation of the *costs* of the war. But they haven't attempted to balance that with the *gains* of the war, so really it's meaningless. What about spurred economic activity due to the war, military manufacturing, jobs created for Americans, and the potential returns from investsments that have been made in reconstruction efforts? I'm not an economist, and I have no idea what these "hidden gains" might be, but I'm sure they total to more than $0.00, which is what the Democrats are implying when they went about tallying hidden costs.
If they'd made a good-faith effort to look at gains as well as losses, the net loss would be a much more potent statistic.
It's not just the war either. Climate change folks need to do this. Sure there may be increased costs to society from the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, land lost to rising seas, species loss, and a slew of public health problems due to flood conditions, increased energy expenditures for heating and cooling, etc. But perhaps grasses or C4 plants (that includes corn and rice) are more productive under higher temperatures? Perhaps growing seasons for some temperate crops will be extended? All plants need CO2 to photosynthesize, but when they open their stomates (basically air- and water- tight pores in the leaves that can open and close) to let CO2 in, they lose water vapor as it evaporates out. Under low water conditions, plants may not be able to photosynthesize as much as they could if they didn't have to conserve water. But with more CO2 in the air, the plants can get more bang for each second they have their stomates open. Under some conditions of heat, water availability, and sunlight, some crops may grow better with more CO2 in the air. (This benefit is NOT likely to be of the same magnitude as the costs of climate change, but it may be a real, measurable effect).
Any attempt to tally costs without equal zeal spent on discovering off-setting benefits is an unscientific and political scam. Same goes for reporters or former Presidents elect Presidential candidates who quickly hand-wave away the potential benefits while schooling us on the costs. That won't do. Give us a *number* for the benefits, say 4 cents on every dollar of costs, and more people will listen. Make the effort to always always report the offsetting number (benefits, when you're reporting about costs; costs, when your reporting on benefits). Should be journalism 101, but I rarely see it done in practice.
The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.
Read more...
Fair enough, actually, as an estimation of the *costs* of the war. But they haven't attempted to balance that with the *gains* of the war, so really it's meaningless. What about spurred economic activity due to the war, military manufacturing, jobs created for Americans, and the potential returns from investsments that have been made in reconstruction efforts? I'm not an economist, and I have no idea what these "hidden gains" might be, but I'm sure they total to more than $0.00, which is what the Democrats are implying when they went about tallying hidden costs.
If they'd made a good-faith effort to look at gains as well as losses, the net loss would be a much more potent statistic.
It's not just the war either. Climate change folks need to do this. Sure there may be increased costs to society from the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, land lost to rising seas, species loss, and a slew of public health problems due to flood conditions, increased energy expenditures for heating and cooling, etc. But perhaps grasses or C4 plants (that includes corn and rice) are more productive under higher temperatures? Perhaps growing seasons for some temperate crops will be extended? All plants need CO2 to photosynthesize, but when they open their stomates (basically air- and water- tight pores in the leaves that can open and close) to let CO2 in, they lose water vapor as it evaporates out. Under low water conditions, plants may not be able to photosynthesize as much as they could if they didn't have to conserve water. But with more CO2 in the air, the plants can get more bang for each second they have their stomates open. Under some conditions of heat, water availability, and sunlight, some crops may grow better with more CO2 in the air. (This benefit is NOT likely to be of the same magnitude as the costs of climate change, but it may be a real, measurable effect).
Any attempt to tally costs without equal zeal spent on discovering off-setting benefits is an unscientific and political scam. Same goes for reporters or former Presidents elect Presidential candidates who quickly hand-wave away the potential benefits while schooling us on the costs. That won't do. Give us a *number* for the benefits, say 4 cents on every dollar of costs, and more people will listen. Make the effort to always always report the offsetting number (benefits, when you're reporting about costs; costs, when your reporting on benefits). Should be journalism 101, but I rarely see it done in practice.