6 ms·

>We invaded and occupied Iraq and didn't even get any oil, just a trillion or so in national debt. At least in the time of Rome citizen soldiers were titled lar

>We invaded and occupied Iraq and didn't even get any oil, just a trillion or so in national debt. At least in the time of Rome citizen soldiers were titled large swaths of land in the conquered territories. The trillions in national debt benefits somebody. Somebody somewhere gets those interest payments and they wouldn't have if the U.S had not borrowed from them.

northwest 13y ago
And then, it's of course also about redistributing these tax dollars to your own benefit. It's about politicians taking money out of the tax pot and giving it to their friends.
lurchpop 13y ago
...and the point wasn't to "get the oil" necessarily, but to take control of it so Hussein wouldn't flood the market and make the price go down.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  Control of the oil in Iraq is more strategically important than in the one scenario you describe. As an aside I never read that Hussein had threatened to flood the market, I read that he threatened, as a negotiating tactic, to withhold oil. Do you have a source for the "flooding the market" claim?
  - gallerytungsten 13y ago
    It wasn't about flooding the market, it was about pricing in Euros, thus taking aim at the dollar as the sole reserve currency. (Among other things.) Example: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.h...
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      (I'd just posted a related item on this) For values of "for other things" of creating a massive flood of dollars on the world financial markets, undercutting its value, and precipitating a financial crisis the likes of which the US still hasn't seen.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  There's also the theory suggested by some (I've just watched Robert Newberg's "History of Oil" though I've seen the point made elsewhere) that it was the move by Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela to move oil sales from dollars to Euros which had something to do with the war. Truth is the story's likely complicated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCwafIntj0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCwafIntj0
mikeash 13y ago
Yes, but the cost far outweighs the benefits. The world (and the economy) is not a zero-sum game. People usually say that when they want to state that value can be created, but it cuts both ways. The fact that it's not a zero-sum game means that value can be destroyed. We blew a trillion bucks on nothing useful. That's destroyed value. That somebody is benefitting in some small way from the side effects of this doesn't change that fact overall. To reduce it to more comprehensible terms, imagine that I take out a $10,000 loan to buy a car, then crush that car into a cube. That's one less car in the world than before. That's a waste of $10,000 in value. That my creditors benefitted because they got interest off the loan doesn't change that fact.
- adammichaelc 13y ago
  Your argument only works if the cost and the benefit are to the same entity. In this case of a trillion dollar war, the cost is to the US taxpayer, and the soldiers who fight the war. The economic benefits go to military contractors, the various war departments of the USG who need reasons to keep their budgets intact, and holders of the US Government's debt (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/01/21/who-really-owns-the-us-national-debt-n1493555/page/full http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations...)
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I don't understand. My argument is simply that value can be destroyed, and that people can still benefit during this process even when the value being destroyed greatly dwarfs the benefit. There's nothing about that which requires the cost and benefit to go to the same place.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- b1daly 13y ago
  This is an interesting question, what is value? What I took away from my econ classes long ago is that it's hard to determine the value of something outside of price (objectively). So if the hypothetical US taxpayer is satisfied with the perceived security they got from building expensive machines, transporting them to the other side of the world, and blowing them up, then it's hard to argue with him. This perspective, horribly, leans towards moving the large bulk of defense spending into the category of non-essential goods like cable tv, or beer, football, shopping at pottery barn. This is spending with a focus on the psychological state the good induces. On the other hand, a true believer in the project of us military probably really feels that resources spent on war are actually essential to survival and should be categorized with spending on food, shelter,medical care, insurance. There's a profound paradox here.
wpietri 13y ago
If one were especially paranoid, one could note that the massive increase in debt from the Iraq war makes the "starve the beast" approach to government [1] much more plausible. I don't think the US far right is quite that farsighted or quite that cynical. However, I've historically been too optimistic about the American power elite, so I wouldn't take my word for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
- fluidcruft 13y ago
  Oh, come on. Bush went into office to starve the beast from day 1, and that's what we were all talking about when he rammed is stupid tax cuts through congress. That's what was going on when Senators were flipping from R to D until he was distracted by 9/11.
teeja 13y ago
Unfortunately those "investments" in war came at a time when investments in the US infrastructure and renewable energy would have paid MUCH bigger dividends. Just a few days ago was the 75th anniversary of Henry Ford getting a medal from Hitler. I guess we learn from history that we don't learn from history. Those boys aren't so interested in "starving the beast" as they are in feeding their wealthy constituent-donors. We need campaign finance reform.

northwest 13y ago

And then, it's of course also about redistributing these tax dollars to your own benefit. It's about politicians taking money out of the tax pot and giving it to their friends.

lurchpop 13y ago

...and the point wasn't to "get the oil" necessarily, but to take control of it so Hussein wouldn't flood the market and make the price go down.

foobarqux 13y ago
Control of the oil in Iraq is more strategically important than in the one scenario you describe. As an aside I never read that Hussein had threatened to flood the market, I read that he threatened, as a negotiating tactic, to withhold oil. Do you have a source for the "flooding the market" claim?
- gallerytungsten 13y ago
  It wasn't about flooding the market, it was about pricing in Euros, thus taking aim at the dollar as the sole reserve currency. (Among other things.) Example: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.h...
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    (I'd just posted a related item on this) For values of "for other things" of creating a massive flood of dollars on the world financial markets, undercutting its value, and precipitating a financial crisis the likes of which the US still hasn't seen.
dredmorbius 13y ago
There's also the theory suggested by some (I've just watched Robert Newberg's "History of Oil" though I've seen the point made elsewhere) that it was the move by Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela to move oil sales from dollars to Euros which had something to do with the war. Truth is the story's likely complicated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCwafIntj0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCwafIntj0

mikeash 13y ago

Yes, but the cost far outweighs the benefits. The world (and the economy) is not a zero-sum game. People usually say that when they want to state that value can be created, but it cuts both ways. The fact that it's not a zero-sum game means that value can be destroyed. We blew a trillion bucks on nothing useful. That's destroyed value. That somebody is benefitting in some small way from the side effects of this doesn't change that fact overall. To reduce it to more comprehensible terms, imagine that I take out a $10,000 loan to buy a car, then crush that car into a cube. That's one less car in the world than before. That's a waste of $10,000 in value. That my creditors benefitted because they got interest off the loan doesn't change that fact.

adammichaelc 13y ago
Your argument only works if the cost and the benefit are to the same entity. In this case of a trillion dollar war, the cost is to the US taxpayer, and the soldiers who fight the war. The economic benefits go to military contractors, the various war departments of the USG who need reasons to keep their budgets intact, and holders of the US Government's debt (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/01/21/who-really-owns-the-us-national-debt-n1493555/page/full http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations...)
- mikeash 13y ago
  I don't understand. My argument is simply that value can be destroyed, and that people can still benefit during this process even when the value being destroyed greatly dwarfs the benefit. There's nothing about that which requires the cost and benefit to go to the same place.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
b1daly 13y ago
This is an interesting question, what is value? What I took away from my econ classes long ago is that it's hard to determine the value of something outside of price (objectively). So if the hypothetical US taxpayer is satisfied with the perceived security they got from building expensive machines, transporting them to the other side of the world, and blowing them up, then it's hard to argue with him. This perspective, horribly, leans towards moving the large bulk of defense spending into the category of non-essential goods like cable tv, or beer, football, shopping at pottery barn. This is spending with a focus on the psychological state the good induces. On the other hand, a true believer in the project of us military probably really feels that resources spent on war are actually essential to survival and should be categorized with spending on food, shelter,medical care, insurance. There's a profound paradox here.

wpietri 13y ago

If one were especially paranoid, one could note that the massive increase in debt from the Iraq war makes the "starve the beast" approach to government [1] much more plausible. I don't think the US far right is quite that farsighted or quite that cynical. However, I've historically been too optimistic about the American power elite, so I wouldn't take my word for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

fluidcruft 13y ago
Oh, come on. Bush went into office to starve the beast from day 1, and that's what we were all talking about when he rammed is stupid tax cuts through congress. That's what was going on when Senators were flipping from R to D until he was distracted by 9/11.

teeja 13y ago

Unfortunately those "investments" in war came at a time when investments in the US infrastructure and renewable energy would have paid MUCH bigger dividends. Just a few days ago was the 75th anniversary of Henry Ford getting a medal from Hitler. I guess we learn from history that we don't learn from history. Those boys aren't so interested in "starving the beast" as they are in feeding their wealthy constituent-donors. We need campaign finance reform.