4 ms·
I think that's a low-ball cost. I've seen some estimates at $1 tr. But still yes, the US (and the US alone) could conceivably afford that (compare to cost of Ir
by retube 16y ago
I think that's a low-ball cost. I've seen some estimates at $1 tr. But still yes, the US (and the US alone) could conceivably afford that (compare to cost of Iraq for example), so I take your point. However, even so, i don't think even the US would (or should) attempt this alone. (It's not just cash, but expertise too).
Re the bailout figure: this is slightly misleading. This isn't money that's just been "spent". It's been invested - in purchasing assets and equity from the bailed out institutions. These institutions are largely expected to buy back these investments at a later date netting the US govt a profit (some already have). Additionally of course, the cost of NOT bailing out the banks may have been much, much more. So I don't think it's a comparable number.
- cryptoz 16y agoYour $1 trillion figure to Mars is absurd. The Mars Direct plan is about $55 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct Could you cite where you heard $1 trillion? Nobody in the last 50 years has suggested it would cost anywhere near that much. Sure, the bank bailouts were a bad example. But you gave an even better one! The Iraq War cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.