ouch

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
#2
Keeps us all in a job!
 
#3
Well, in WW2 the yanks made quite a tidy sum....mainly from us. I seem to recall seeing somewhere that they came out of WW2 two and half times richer then when they went in.

What I am interested in is how much the Yanks so called "war on terror" (but really war against US enemies) has cost us.......and where do we send the bill? Blair or the US?
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
Well, in WW2 the yanks made quite a tidy sum....mainly from us. I seem to recall seeing somewhere that they came out of WW2 two and half times richer then when they went in.
We only finished paying for that in time to pay for these new wars
Being a war to war salesman sounds as though it's quite profitable
 
#6
Well, in WW2 the yanks made quite a tidy sum....mainly from us. I seem to recall seeing somewhere that they came out of WW2 two and half times richer then when they went in.

What I am interested in is how much the Yanks so called "war on terror" (but really war against US enemies) has cost us.......and where do we send the bill? Blair or the US?
Actually with a huge deficit that dwarfs the current one they are having a tissy about, vanished pretty quickly though.
 
#9
Well seeing as it has lasted nearly twice as long,,,it would do.
 
#10
Depends on what's going on with the FI, can't really seem to see the septics being that popular when they insist on supporting Argentina's claim of sovereignty over them and asking us to come to negotiating their hand over to the Argies.
Mind you IMO that's because if the argies do take over the area would become "stable" and the yanks would make a ton from the oil drilling done there- pretty much the same reason for the war on terror (war for oil) currently going on.
 
#11
Well seeing as it has lasted nearly twice as long,,,it would do.
It's not the length of time that costs (although it is a factor, obviously). The cost of the weapons/munitions/vehicles/planes etc costs so much more than they did in WWII due to the levels of sophistication.
 
#12
It's not the length of time that costs (although it is a factor, obviously). The cost of the weapons/munitions/vehicles/planes etc costs so much more than they did in WWII due to the levels of sophistication.
Now are you including Lend Lease,,,,,,,US to UK 31billion$ (= 470billion$ now),,,,,,,Canada to UK 4.7$ (US) (=71billion$ US now),,,
Lend Lease started in March 1941,,,,Repayment finally ended in Dec 2006.
 
#15
We only finished paying for that in time to pay for these new wars
Being a war to war salesman sounds as though it's quite profitable
"war to war salesman" ...aka Politician?
 
#16
A morale victory to the terrorists then ?? Perhaps one of their tactics is to bankrupt their enemy!
 
#17
Barry recently was talking the GWOT cost just over a trillion dollars so far, this does seem to be a bit of a porkie. This report reckons $3.7-4.5 trillion dollars for the GWOT, a pretty big balllpark. A while back Stiglitz reckoned the bill was $3-7 trillion. Given the soaring cost of profligate US healthcare and the very large number of maimed young US servicemen pessimism is probably required.

Based on the last figures that's perhaps 25-50% of the USA's annual GDP, double or nearly five times the annual defense budget, nearly 2-5 times the US deficit. Or 3-7 times what the 07 crash cost according to Wall St's well cooked books and we can rely on the next one will probably be much worse. This is even by US standards a lot of money. That these events have come together at a time when the boomers have luxuriated in amassing personal debt and crazy tax breaks makes the situation even more critical.

Leaving aside the weakened global position of DC finally bumping into post Cold War reality have there been other benefits?

Well it knocked the stuffing out of the unipolar world bollox without a severe mauling from a serious opponent like China or Russia being necessary and that reality shock may be a blessing in disguise for DC if not its highly dependent allies.

US millitary spend in itself does have substantial Keynesian benefits, it was a vital part of booms in states like California in the past, but these wars have not been that good for business. They've been infantry heavy affairs and the margins on equipping and supporting foot soldiers are far more limited than the big ticket cash cows like the not very useful F-22 which has seen its pork supply somewhat diminished. The government subsidy hungry Redstates with basing have benefited somewhat but this has not been a spectacular stealth socialist boondoggle like Reagan's SDI program.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
A morale victory to the terrorists then ?? Perhaps one of their tactics is to bankrupt their enemy!
well that is how we ruined the USSR, interesting how clinton was on the verge of having no defecit and they were wondering what to do with the projected surplus
 
#19
Well, in WW2 the yanks made quite a tidy sum....mainly from us. I seem to recall seeing somewhere that they came out of WW2 two and half times richer then when they went in.

What I am interested in is how much the Yanks so called "war on terror" (but really war against US enemies) has cost us.......and where do we send the bill? Blair or the US?
Could we possibly stay out of the next one and let the Septics pay for things themselves... bankrolled by the Chinese of course, which we ain.t... and hi-jacking El Presidente.s words, the next war is in Britain: this is where the money is needed!
 
#20
Good,,,,,,I'm so glad,,,,However,,,The Cost of the Cold War now how much did that cost?????
I don't know about the cost on a national basis but it cost me a bloody fortune in alcohol and fags even at duty free prices.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top