Average households pay $20,900 for war.

Originally posted by agryson
Hawaii doesn't count...

How about Spain, Portugal, and Germany?

Originally posted by slimjim
How about Spain, Portugal, and Germany?

ok, then the fifties don't count.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... calm down, I'm only slaggin.

Originally posted by agryson
Hawaii doesn't count...

Wha?? Halt! Stop! Decrease your forward pace!

You think Pacific doesn't qualify as a sea? 😉

Originally posted by MacSwain
Wha?? Halt! Stop! Decrease your forward pace!

You think Pacific doesn't qualify as a sea? 😉

I didn't mean in the sense of over seas of course, but in the sense of being an American on foreign soil, please give me some credit MacSwain, as well as some artistic license. ;P

Originally posted by telerion
You really should drop the political hack from your persona. It's not a hard statistic to come up with. You take the cost of the war in real dollars over the last 4.5 years and then divide that by the number of households (weighted by household size) in the US.

Now, instead of pulling a Hannity (i.e. turning of the brain and breaking out the whine) a ...[text shortened]... ing in that it gives one a sense of magnitude, it should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Speaking of political hacks.....

Taxes haven't gone up at all. The average American family, by way of the U.S. gubmint, has spent exactly zero dollars more than they were going to spend had these wars never happened.

Originally posted by Merk
Speaking of political hacks.....

Taxes haven't gone up at all. The average American family, by way of the U.S. gubmint, has spent exactly zero dollars more than they were going to spend had these wars never happened.

Tell me, Merk. Which one of these two outlets was more important?

1) Gubmint decreased expenditure in other items;
2) Gubmint contracted debt.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
I think you also need to include other costs such as the economy, the 26 year low of the dollar against sterling......whenever a economy starts to go under a little, a war is a good way to boost it.

As one of the postings mentioned, most of the money is spend in the UStrue , buts its US taxpayers money that is being used to purchase weapons etc which in ...[text shortened]... are always telling me that they canlt go around saying they are American as they "get S**T",.

I think you also need to include other costs such as the economy, the 26 year low of the dollar against sterling......whenever a economy starts to go under a little, a war is a good way to boost it.

You can't possibly make the claim that the War on Terror was a way to pull the dollar out of a slide because the dollar wasn't in a slide, it was up. In fact, the Dollar was up in relation to all major western currencies in '00 and '01.

Nevermind that all traded western currencies constantly change value in relation to each other, the simple fact is that the U.S dollar was up in relation to the Euro for 5 out of 6 years and up in relation to the Pound for 4 out of 6 years previous to the War on Terror, (It started in late '01).

Dollar to Euro
'96 +4.9%
'97 +13.5%
'98 -5.4%
'99 +16.4%
'00 +6.8%
'01 +5.4%

Dollar to Pound
'96 -9.3%
'97 +3.7%
'98 -0.5%
'99 +2.7%
'00 +8.0%
'01 +2.8%

Going back a little farther, the Dollar was up in relation to both the Euro and the Pound for 8 out of 12 years from 1990 to 2001.

The direct result is that the US global image if falling sharpy. Trade surplus is increasing, this will impact jobs in the US for the average american

I assume you mean trade deficit?

The U.S. has run an account deficit every single year since 1981. Yet, the U.S. economy has grown very well during that period. The 2007 U.S. economy towers over the the 1980 U.S. economy like a mobster standing over a grave, shoveling dirt onto someones face.

Originally posted by Palynka
Tell me, Merk. Which one of these two outlets was more important?

1) Gubmint decreased expenditure in other items;
2) Gubmint contracted debt.

Neither one was more important than the other.

I think. I'm not sure I understand the question though, so my answer might not make sense.

Originally posted by Merk
Neither one was more important than the other.

I think. I'm not sure I understand the question though, so my answer might not make sense.

To cover the extra military expenses, the US can do three things:

1) Increase taxes;
2) Reduce expenditure on other items;
3) Contract debt.

You already ruled out 1). How important as then 2) in comparison to 3)?

Edit - Just so you have an idea of the magnitude, this is yearly spending on national defense (Whitehouse numbers):

2000 - 304,136 billions of USD
2006 - 561,815 billions of USD

Originally posted by slimjim
I travel over seas and I tell people I'm American and I don't get any S*it about it.

Maybe they are scared off your size....

But a lot of people I know do.....they are small people also

Just out of cursit, where have you been ? Have you been to the Middle east for example ?

Where you traveling, or their as part off work etc ?

Originally posted by Merk
[b]I think you also need to include other costs such as the economy, the 26 year low of the dollar against sterling......whenever a economy starts to go under a little, a war is a good way to boost it.

You can't possibly make the claim that the War on Terror was a way to pull the dollar out of a slide because the dollar wasn't in a slide, it was up. In f ...[text shortened]... conomy like a mobster standing over a grave, shoveling dirt onto someones face.[/b]

I think I'm not being clear with you.

The war on terror is about controling oil supplies and so called WMD's.

But having a war is a good way to increase demand within an econcomy, so I guess my point is that to include the full cost to American, you do need to factor thoses in.

You can quote all the figueres you wish to me, but every econcomy does have a cycle (I have an economics degree by the way) and the US economy is in a downward one, in 07, the dollar is weak very weak that why Brits love to shop their.

Its at a point where its cheaper to fly to American and do you xmas shopping then to stay n London for exmaple.

I notice you have not included in data for 02 - 07 by the way

People have started to request payment not in dollars, OPEC members (where you like them or not) are seeing that the weak dollar is having a direct impact on them, The Saudia's just donlt have the guts to go for it, that is a mixed currency situation.


Of course you are going to have more money in 2007 compared to 1981, inflation, printing, mulipler effect....so whats your point ?

A trade deficit, merely means that you import more than you export in a nut shell, but as the US is a credit drivern economy, the effects off this are starting to be felt across the world

I'm not having a pop, just merely pointing out that a war is a good way to help a flagging economy, espcially a "made up war"

Originally posted by RSMA1234
I think I'm not being clear with you.

The war on terror is about controling oil supplies and so called WMD's.

But having a war is a good way to increase demand within an econcomy, so I guess my point is that to include the full cost to American, you do need to factor thoses in.

You can quote all the figueres you wish to me, but every econcomy does ...[text shortened]... ointing out that a war is a good way to help a flagging economy, espcially a "made up war"

You can quote all the figueres you wish to me, but every econcomy does have a cycle (I have an economics degree by the way) and the US economy is in a downward one,

U.S. GDP growth was 3.9% last quarter. Are you sure about that downward trend thingy?

in 07, the dollar is weak very weak that why Brits love to shop their. Its at a point where its cheaper to fly to American and do you xmas shopping then to stay n London for exmaple.

In the late 90's, it was the overly strong dollar that was supposedly going to be bad for the economy because nobody would want to do business with us. Is there any value the dollar could have that wasn't a harbinger of doom? By all means, send your fellow Brits over the pond to shop.

I notice you have not included in data for 02 - 07 by the way

That's easy. You've moved the goalposts. You claimed the War on Terror was used as a tool to bring the dollar out of a slide so I gave you the numbers to show that the dollar was booming before the WoT, not sliding. If you want numbers after '01, it's only going to reinforce my point that the WoT wasn't a tool to strengthen the Dollar. the Dollar was down against all major western currencies from 02'-04' up in 05' in relation to all major western currencies except for the Canadian Loonie, then fell again in 06' Obviously, it will finish '07 down as well. It's fairly obvious that the most recent Dollar slide started after the WoT, not before.

For a little more on the Dollar sliding. (Not that this is the entire reason for the slide) Did they teach you about the short rate and what's called a "carry trade"?

Of course you are going to have more money in 2007 compared to 1981, inflation, printing, mulipler effect....so whats your point ?

I didn't say we have more money, I said we have a stronger economy. My point was a direct refutation to your claim that deficits are bad. If deficits are bad for an economy, how can the U.S. economy keep getting stronger when we keep having deficits?

A trade deficit, merely means that you import more than you export in a nut shell,

Yes, and that would be a problem if we were a Mom and Pop grocery store, but it's an economy, not a single business.

but as the US is a credit drivern economy, the effects off this are starting to be felt across the world

Welcome to the global economy. all major western economies move together, more or less. There's still some independence in movement, but overall, they trend together. Think back to the late 70's and early 80's. american and British economies both had some very weak times. You don't have to take my word for it, you can chart it yourself. I'm sure you've heard of "The Great Depression". If you look into it, you'll see that it was more or less a global depression, it's just that American policy was so bad that we made it worse on ourselves. That's right, even way back then economies trended together.

Most western economies are "credit driven" Is it possible that it's a negative for America and not for, say, Britain?

Most importantly here, debt is not bad, it's good. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. Follow along for a second and I'll prove it. American ROA (Return On Assets) is about 12% ($13 trillion GDP - the Return divided by $111 trillion in assets.) and our overall after tax interest is in the range of 4%. (home loans and business loans are tax deductible, in effect making their interest rates extremely low. Credit card rates are much higher, but a much smaller portion of total debt.)

Tah-Dah! Americas ROA is 3 TIMES higher than it's borrowing costs. What does economics tell us that means? It tells us that in order to acheive optimization we need MORE DEBT! Not less.

Thus concludes this evenings economics lesson.

Originally posted by Palynka
To cover the extra military expenses, the US can do three things:

1) Increase taxes;
2) Reduce expenditure on other items;
3) Contract debt.

You already ruled out 1). How important as then 2) in comparison to 3)?

Edit - Just so you have an idea of the magnitude, this is [b]yearly spending on national defense (Whitehouse numbers):

2000 - 304,136 billions of USD
2006 - 561,815 billions of USD[/b]

In this case, It would be preferable for the government to use debt instead of cutting expenses elsewhere. You point to an increase in military expenditures of about $255 billion. While this may seem like a big number, we're not talking about a household, we're talking about an economy. And not just any economy, we're talking about a $13 trillion dollar economy that is growing. Meaning that income to the treasury is also increasing at the same time that expeditures are.

Now, that's not to say that the only part of the budget with increasing expenditures is the military, nor is that to say that income always increases quickly enough to keep pace with sudden increases in expenses. What that is saying though, is that $255 billion in a growing $13 trillion economy isn't much. That debt is relatively easy to grow out of, so to speak and in fact, the budget deficit is currently shrinking.

Which is bad. Budget surpluses precede weak economies. America had a budget surplus for four years at the end of the 90's which lead to, get this, not economic growth, recession. Yep, You read that right. Government budget surpluses lead to bad times.

That's why it would be better for an increase in military spending to be funded with debt instead of cutting elsewhere.

Originally posted by Merk
In this case, It would be preferable for the government to use debt instead of cutting expenses elsewhere. You point to an increase in military expenditures of about $255 billion. While this may seem like a big number, we're not talking about a household, we're talking about an economy. And not just any economy, we're talking about a $13 trillion dollar economy for an increase in military spending to be funded with debt instead of cutting elsewhere.

From mid-2001 to end of 2006 (external public debt)/GDP had an increase of more than 60%.

Do you still think you're growing out of debt?

edit - note that by using this ratio, you effectively compound the ability of growing out of debt because growth affects the denominator.

Originally posted by Palynka
From mid-2001 to end of 2006 (external public debt)/GDP had an increase of more than 60%.

Do you still think you're growing out of debt?

edit - note that by using this ratio, you effectively compound the ability of growing out of debt because growth affects the denominator.

Are we talking about government debt, corporate debt or personal debt?

Corprorate debt, we need more of. Government debt (which is the topic at hand and what, as far as I understand, external public debt refers to.) to fund the war is preferable to cutting expenses elsewhere. Personal debt is a different story, we need less irresponsible debt, personal debt is not what we were talking about, I assume.

I think people treat gubmint debt the same way they treat personal debt, which is not correct. Personal debts have to be paid off at some point. Treating government debt the same way leads us to believe that somebody has to pay this debt back down to zero. That is not the case.