$200 billion up in smoke.

Del Boy

Active member
Just to put things into perspective. It was recently reported that the wars in the middle east have so far cost America some 200 billion dollars, I understand.

If this is true, well this is less than the amount our prime minister Gordon Brown has just thrown at the Northern Rock bank collapse.

Somehow that makes the war effort sound a bargain!
 
This has yet to be confirmed. The government has lent over $100 billion dollars already and is now preparing to nationalise the business, so the share-holders will have to be accomodated.The bank's activities involve employment for some thousands of folk in working class areas of the north. Nevertheless the sums involved are horrendous, ain't they?
 
Last edited:
Del Boy

The Government had to intervene. Letting Northern Rock sink would have been disastrous as its the 8th largest bank in the UK. I am in the middle between socialism and capitalism (either extreme is bad) and am generally against nationalizing banks, especially in the case of NR because the banks woes was mostly due to its own incompetance and greed they deserved to go belly up.

But in the case of NR to let it collapse would have been an economic catastrophe, even the conservative party knows it -they just like taking a cheap shot at G.Brown but they would have done exactly the something.

Besides the nationalization is only temporary, G.Brown has said he will sell the bank the moment its out of financial dire straits.

And lastly the Iraq war is actually closing on $2 Trillion, so bailing out NR is a bargain in comparison.
 
To quote the USA Today.

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade...The CBO estimates assume that 75,000 troops will remain in both countries through 2017...As of Sept. 30, the two wars have cost $604 billion, the CBO says...

And the Guardian.

The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.

So you have one saying over the next decade the war could costs could add up to $2.4 trillion and the other saying over the course of the next six decades or so the war could cost between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. Projected costs ten years out based on unknown variables is not the same as the actual cost to date.
 
What a disaster.
That's the tradeoff between private and government. Private is more efficient and has the potential to have extremely positive results. On the other hand they also have a far higher chance of going under. Government... well let's not even get started there but you can always count on whatever they run being there next year.
And I agree. Socialism and Capitalism... either extreme is horrible. I've seen some near-pure capitalistic systems in Southeast Asia. It is simply heart breaking. And there is no justice.
 
You always get these figure thrown up about the cost of the war, well if they are not doing that then they are training and still firing off large amounts of munitions. They often throw in the cost of the troops wages in these minor wars, but still the troops would be paid if they were out there or not. These small wars are the best training grounds that you can find and they get a chance to test the weapons and ideas. Well I can here you say what about those that get killed, well we would expect to lose at least 1% per cent of of our force while training each year and if training for combat that would rise to around 10%. During WW2 our Regiment lost about 13% of it's total strength in training and accidents during training. Also added into these figures of people killed on the front are those that are killed in road accidents now this can happen know matter where you are.
 
What a disaster.
That's the tradeoff between private and government. Private is more efficient and has the potential to have extremely positive results. On the other hand they also have a far higher chance of going under. Government... well let's not even get started there but you can always count on whatever they run being there next year.
And I agree. Socialism and Capitalism... either extreme is horrible. I've seen some near-pure capitalistic systems in Southeast Asia. It is simply heart breaking. And there is no justice.

13th

I think it depends it what. The US health care system isnt very efficent whereas the socialist one in Europe and Canada is extremely efficient.

The problem with Capitalism and Privatization is that profit comes first at the expense of everything else. The reason privatization is more efficent is because they only believe in one thing, PROFIT.

Healthcare is a good example. If you really think you can your trust HMO to pay for that $600,000 surgery that will save your life you might want to get your affairs in order first. They will bribe you doctor to prescribe alternate less effect (and less expensive treatment). Their armies of lawyers will find loopholes to nullify your contract, they will pressure doctors to provide the minimum of care, the will make the premiums too high on clients likely to require care.

Thats why some areas need to be privatized.

TOG+Damien

I am talking about projected war costs (i.e when this mess is finally over) not what it currently costs. Furthermore you figures don't include aftermath costs like buying repairing replacing new equipment or the cost of medical treatment for the wounded (which will be for the rest of their lives), unless the compassionate GOP cuts the VA budget again.
 
Furthermore you figures don't include aftermath costs like buying repairing replacing new equipment or the cost of medical treatment for the wounded (which will be for the rest of their lives), unless the compassionate GOP cuts the VA budget again.

Actually, I believe I stated in my post that your costs were projected, not costs to date and I'm pretty sure I mentioned that these would be costs that would be paid over the next decade according to one article and potentially the next sixty+ years according to another one. But what are we doing to do to trim those costs? Not pay our veteran's medical bills? The Army tried that with my grandpa after Korea, came back to bite 'em in the ass hard 45 years later when they were forced to recognize that his health problems were a result of only have three feet of small intestines thanks to a mortar round he took to the gut while in the Army. I would place the cost to date around $605 billion spent so far, it's a very crude number but one that I think is probably quite close to the true costs to date. As for the projected costs, I hope they go up because in some parts of the country our vets are getting sub-par medical treatment thanks to an already stretched budget that has been getting nibbled at for... two decades at least I would guess. But then again, I still hope to get into the Army some day so my view about how much we should spend on health care and retirement benefits for our troops is a little biased.
 
Thanks for putting the record straight guys - I suspected that would prove to be the case - the quoted $200 billion seemed low to me at the time. A case of someone trying to make the figures match I guess.
Not me tho' - innocent here boss. Apologies.
 
Back
Top