Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 01/25/2005 View Mon 01/24/2005 View Sun 01/23/2005 View Sat 01/22/2005 View Fri 01/21/2005 View Thu 01/20/2005 View Wed 01/19/2005
1
2005-01-25 Iraq-Jordan
Bush to Seek $80B for Iraq, Afghan Wars
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2005-01-25 12:01:53 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Article: That would be nearly half the $613 billion the United States spent for World War I or the $623 billion it expended for the Vietnam War, when the costs of those conflicts are translated into 2005 dollars.

AP is lying with statistics. US expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan are about $100b a year, or about 0.6% of GDP, a relative nit compared with past conflicts, including Vietnam. WWI expenditures* were about 4% of GDP in the first year, and about 18% of GDP in the second year, as befitted a major conflict with some of the biggest powers in Europe - Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire. The huge expense of that war was one reason why it was called the Great War, and a reason why the Central Powers agreed to an unfavorable armistice - they could no longer sustain it. It was also why Wilson became hugely unpopular for agreeing to jump in - many Americans felt it was an unnecessary war, which killed 100,000 Americans in just two years. Note that AP never mentions this.

* Note the following stats: In WWI the initial defense outlay in 1917 of $26 billion occurred while real GNP fell $0.7 billion -- a 1% decline. In 1918 expenditures rose $93 billion accompanied by a $6.3 billion increase in GNP.

As usual, AP lies with statistics. The appropriate measure isn't the dollar amounts, it's the percentage of GDP.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-25 10:37:44 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-25 10:37:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Note that AP is also lying about the inflation adjusted amounts - 93+26 = $119B. The inflation factor, which I feel understates inflation, is .068 for 1917 and .08 for 1918. This brings WWI expenditures to $1.54T in 2004 dollars for an average expenditure of $750B a year, dwarfing War on Terror expenditures in inflation-adjusted terms, never mind percentage of industrial output terms.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-25 10:48:50 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-25 10:48:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Why are percentages of GDP more meaningful? Because they provide a better picture of the strain on ordinary Americans of war expenditures. In the second year of WWI, $1800 out of every $10000 earned by each American was being spent on the war. In the second year of the Iraqi campaign, $60 out of every $10000 earned is being spent on the war. That's a huge difference.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-01-25 11:06:18 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-01-25 11:06:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 What ZF said. Plus, the tax burden in the WWI era fell far more heavily on working class families than it does now. So adjust the WWI figure even higher relative to today's per-taxpaying household figure.
Posted by lex 2005-01-25 11:29:52 AM||   2005-01-25 11:29:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Nice analysis guys.

One note: every time I read similar misleading claims in articles, I keep in mind that the journo school yutz who wrote it is probably functionally innumerate.
Posted by Carl in N.H.  2005-01-25 12:11:20 PM||   2005-01-25 12:11:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 The appropriate measure isn't the dollar amounts, it's the percentage of GDP.

Ah, but it's not possible to influence the regular Schmoe's thinking unless it's framed in nice, simple terms.

"Gawd almahtee, that's wun lawrge sum-o-money!!"
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-25 2:56:32 PM||   2005-01-25 2:56:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Not quiet good enough BAR, should be more like:

"That's enough money to supply every elementary school teacher with a $50,000 a year raise with enough money left over to buy every 3rd child a free Harvard education plus allow all people now age 42-62 to retire immediately at triple their current salary."
Posted by Shipman 2005-01-25 5:09:38 PM||   2005-01-25 5:09:38 PM|| Front Page Top

10:57 nostradamus
10:47 nostradamus
23:58 trailing wife
23:57 trailing wife
23:53 Alaska Paul
23:53 3dc
23:50 Alaska Paul
23:44 Alaska Paul
23:44 smn
23:34 Jame Retief
23:30 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:27 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:24 Sike Mylwester
23:24 Zhang Fei
23:22 Zhang Fei
23:18 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:18 Sobieky
23:17 Sobieky
23:16 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:09 badanov
22:57 Sobieky
22:53 Cat D12
22:49 Mike Sylwester
22:46 Mike Sylwester









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com