Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic costs of war

watson.brown.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#141

Post by ineedasername »

runawaybottle wrote: post #13
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #5

Deaths 9/11 2,996 Deaths Covid-19 USA 621,000 207x Lack of understanding of large numbers is a flaw in the human mind we have to figure out how to fix.

Some related numbers for just Afghanistan: American service members killed in Afghanistan through April: 2,448. U.S. contractors: 3,846. Afghan national military and police: 66,000. Other allied service members, including from other NATO member states: 1,144. Afghan civilians: 47,245. Taliban and other opposition fighters: 51,191. Aid workers: 444. Journalists: 72. https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-business-afgh…

Regarding perpetual war, I'm not sure that was inevitable. Without massive corruption, incompetent leadership, and Russia providing weapons to the Taliban things might not have been so bleak.

Re: Economic costs of war

#142

Post by pessimizer »

vaidhy wrote: post #62
CptJamesCook wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

37% federal, 13.3% california = 50.3 Most wealthy people spend another 1-2% of their income on property taxes and a bit on sales taxes, etc. I estimate I pay 53% of my income to taxes. I agree that 55% is unlikely tho

The federal rate is progressive and not on the entire income. 37% applies only on the taxable income above $518K. Why is this misrepresentation?

I spent an hour arguing about taxes with someone until I realized that they didn't understand how marginal taxes worked. I bet you dollars to donuts that if you start talking about taxes in a room full of upper-middle class people, one will tell you about people choosing not to earn more money so they don't get "bumped" into a higher tax rate.

Re: Economic costs of war

#143

Post by epistasis »

throwthere wrote: post #18

This title is completely wrong. The article estimates the US has accumulated around $2 trillion in war debt as of 2020. It goes on to estimate interest payments will equal $2 trillion by 2030 and $6.4 trillion by 2050.

The US prints two kinds of money: 1) dollars, which are subject to inflation and decrease in value over time, and 2) bonds, which accumulate in dollar value over time, usually in front of inflation.

So because we spent bonds instead of spending dollars, we can not take their dollar value as the cost, because that's most definitely not what we printed for these.

Re: Economic costs of war

#144

Post by bamboozled »

epistasis wrote: post #128
bamboozled wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change will destabilize the world more than any "terrorists" could. Also would've been nice to have seen 6.4 trillion go into renewables tech and investments ~ 20 years ago.

$6.4T into renewables and storage over the past 20 years would have decarbonized the US grid several time over, accelerated the tech curve drastically, nearly completely transitioned us to EVs, and we'd probably have decarbonized a good chunk of industry that is hard to decarbonize now. We'd have cheaper energy than we do today, and cheaper energy forever. We could have been looking at current levels of climate chang…

Absolutely, it's a good reminder that there is a lot of behind the scenes bullshit at play in this world.

The world was screwed on this deal and while it's an absolutely humanitarian rights disaster and tragedy what's happening in Afghanistan, maybe the current Administration has worked out that it would be better to spend the money elsewhere, hopefully on tackling climate change.

Re: Economic costs of war

#147

Post by ClumsyPilot »

mrleinad wrote: post #82
jaggederest wrote: post #6

Approximately $20,000 per person. $1000 a year would have made a nice universal basic income for the last 20 years.

If all that money was spent in the US, you'd have a much higher inflation. This is another way the US exports the dollar as a worldwide currency, and is able to print money without causing high inflation domestically.

Its a snall fraction if total economy, how would inflation be 'much' higher?

Re: Economic costs of war

#148

Post by valzam »

onelastjob wrote: post #104
dlp211 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we don't just print money and give it away. The money is borrowed (backed by some asset), and this distinction matters. IOW, the money that gets printed is (generally) non-inflationary. Stop using what you learned in your Econ 1XX level courses to try and reason about government spending and money operations, especially, US government spending and money operations. What you learned is not applicable.

Seems like inflation is skyrocketing to me. Specifically asset inflation. Housing prices, stocks, bitcoin, etc. Basically dollar becoming worth less against these assets thanks to QE.

House prices are a real issue, although I don't think that's only because of increased money supply.

Otherwise, does it matter? What's the impact on ordinary people if bitcoin is worth 100 or 1 mio dollars? Notwithstanding the fact that the number of people actively buying financial assets has gone up a lot in recent years, which is bound to increase prices.

Re: Economic costs of war

#149

Post by nostrademons »

thechao wrote: post #52
lucb1e wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that wages are quite inflated in the USA and $1000/year is not a livable income (i.e. sufficient for cheap housing, cheap food, water, electricity, basic appliances like a fridge and washing machine, heating, and pretty much nothing else) even in Europe where I'm from. Or am I missing the point of a UBI?

Discretionary income for a lot of families is — functionally — zero. The result is that any sort of financial issue becomes a devastating (possibly lifelong) burden. Most of these issues are single-occurrence and probably fall in the 200–500$ range. A 1000$ a year UBI would be life-changing for them. And by "them" I mean, like, 50% of the country. I'm in Texas, and the maximum amount of cash assistance possible — mar…

Assuming prices of necessities don't rise to capture that UBI. Which is a very real concern; when all your potential customers have an extra $1000/year, you raise your prices by $1000/year and suddenly you have $(1000 * # customers) extra per year and they're back where they started.

To really fix poverty, you need to address shortages, particularly ones in basic necessities. If there's a housing unit available for everyone, landlords will have no leverage to raise rents. If there's a preschool for every kid, the cost of childcare won't go up. If there's a doctor (really a health insurer - the issue is monopolization of the customer channel) for everyone and you can switch easily, the cost of healthcare won't go up.

If you give money to people and don't fix the underlying shortages, the price just adjusts to capture that money.

Re: Economic costs of war

#150

Post by rodgerd »

glitchc wrote: post #40
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #5

Deaths 9/11 2,996 Deaths Covid-19 USA 621,000 207x Lack of understanding of large numbers is a flaw in the human mind we have to figure out how to fix.

It’s not the what, but the how. A terrorist attack on home turf is a slap in the face of every American. Outrage is to be expected.

> A terrorist attack on home turf is a slap in the face of every American.

Unless the terrorists are white guys angry that their choice didn't win an election. Then it's tirelessly defended.

Post reply on HN