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

221–230 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#221

Post by jobigoud »

supperburg wrote: post #203
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.

Can you provide a source for COVID deaths? Is there a source that gives the number of deaths that were caused by COVID and nothing else? They say that anyone who died and tested positive for the presence of COVID was considered a COVID death even if they got hit by a bus for example. And many elderly people died from it who were on the brink of death and were just as likely to die from some other minor insult. I wond…

If anything it's underestimated, this can be seen by comparing the number to excess mortality.

Re: Economic costs of war

#222

Post by WaxProlix »

robomartin wrote: post #209
Smoosh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of this when people say we can't afford to mitigate climate change.

It isn't that we can't afford to mitigate climate change. We cannot mitigate climate change, period. In other words, you could throw all the money on the planet at it and it would not make a dent. No purported solution passes the math and physics tests. It's easy to make a mess. This can be done with very little energy, resources and time. On the other hand, cleaning-up the mess takes far more energy, time and resour…

That may or may not be true right now. Was it true 10 years ago? 20? 30? There exists a point at which it was not true, and we're talking about taking that investment over a 20+ year historical period, not as a lump sum right now.

Lots of fossil fuel aligned people have pivoted from "everything is fine" to "there's nothing we can do now", and echoing the latter might be factually correct, but in the context it smacks of disingenuity.

Re: Economic costs of war

#223

Post by tomjakubowski »

epicureanideal wrote: post #75

Perhaps they should've spent this much on medical research instead. For the same money perhaps we could save a few million people dying of various diseases or cancer. It would take a whole lot of terrorist events to counter the benefits of significant R&D funding for medicine (or maybe a lot of other things).

Could we? I am genuinely curious: has anybody tried to quantify the ROI in lives saved or life years saved (or something) from spending on medical research? Is that a stupid question because medical advances come in fits and starts and don't have steady progress?

Re: Economic costs of war

#224

Post by sgregnt »

Smoosh wrote: post #136
el_jay wrote: post #118

To those here riffing on the theme of “this misrepresents the volume and beneficiaries of the transactions involved” - you’re not wrong. Accurate representation of public info like this is a top organisational problem for our species at the moment. But I do think you miss the point, so aptly put by Mr Eisenhower: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a thef…

I think of this when people say we can't afford to mitigate climate change.

Maybe we can use our soft military power to force other countries to reduce pollution to at least to our levels? China looking at you....

Re: Economic costs of war

#225

Post by throwawaysea »

SilverRed wrote: post #208
supperburg wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a source for COVID deaths? Is there a source that gives the number of deaths that were caused by COVID and nothing else? They say that anyone who died and tested positive for the presence of COVID was considered a COVID death even if they got hit by a bus for example. And many elderly people died from it who were on the brink of death and were just as likely to die from some other minor insult. I wond…

>Traffic deaths in USA over 2 years ~80,000. Nobody cares. Many people do care about this and advocate for less car infrastructure, safer streets, better walkability and better public transport. Car centric design was the worst mistake of the last few decades.

There is a clear positive return on those traffic deaths. We live far richer lives because of motor vehicles and what quick private transportation unlocks. I think car centric design is great personally.

Re: Economic costs of war

#226

Post by Alupis »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #197
Alupis wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, $20,000 per tax payer is $1,000 per year over the last 20 years we've been in Afghanistan. Which comes out to a whopping $83.33 per month. I think this just illustrates how expensive these UBI plans really are... particularly the ones that flaunt several thousand dollar payments to every tax payer per month.

> I think this just illustrates how expensive these UBI plans really are... One thing to keep in mind is that this is half of the military budget, which is less than half of discretionary spending, which is much less than half of total federal spending. The other thing to keep in mind is that most of the UBI money would be immediately recaptured in income tax. Making it Universal keeps the logistics simpler, but a we…

> One thing to keep in mind is that this is half of the military budget

Prior to "COVID Spending", the total US budget was $4.5 Trillion in 2019, of which 3.4 Trillion was from revenue, and nearly $1 Trillion was deficit spending[1]. In 2019, the total Military budget was a little above $700 Billion[2]. (these numbers also highlight the absurd levels of spending being contemplated in congress right now, 1.2 Trillion and another 3.4 Trillion - these are huge numbers).

Sure, there's waste in the military budget, but majority of it is indeed well spent (we ask a lot of our armed forces these days, and that requires a lot of money, ie. you could not say, cut the military budget in half without severe consequences).

For a UBI to make a significant impact on someone's life, it will need to be substantial (at least several hundred dollars per month). Cost of living, and therefore purchase power of that UBI varies wildly across the country, but even if we just keep things simple and pay every taxpayer (~144 million people[3]) $500 monthly, that total weighs in at 72 Billion Dollars every month, or $864 Billion annually. (again, just for tax payers)

Some of that money will be recaptured in taxes (income taxes, which is absurd on a UBI, and sales taxes), but majority of it will end up directly in the economy. While good for the economy, that level of spending is just untenable long term for the federal government... and that's only for $500, an in-significant amount of money in major metropolitan areas such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc. Which is why many people are arguing for $2,000 monthly for all tax payers... and as you can see, the numbers just plain do not work.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_States_federal_bud...

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spend...).

[3] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income....

Re: Economic costs of war

#227

Post by SilverRed »

throwawaysea wrote: post #225
SilverRed wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Traffic deaths in USA over 2 years ~80,000. Nobody cares. Many people do care about this and advocate for less car infrastructure, safer streets, better walkability and better public transport. Car centric design was the worst mistake of the last few decades.

There is a clear positive return on those traffic deaths. We live far richer lives because of motor vehicles and what quick private transportation unlocks. I think car centric design is great personally.

Debatable but there is a lot of research showing long car commutes are taking a significant toll on mental health and physical health. We have constantly rising rates of depression, stress and obesity. All things that are partially linked to car usage.

We live far richer lives due to a huge array of technological progressions.

An anecdote but my life massively improved when I got rid of my car and moved somewhere where walking is my only transport method needed. I'm healthier, happier, and have more free time.

Re: Economic costs of war

#228

Post by throwaway0a5e »

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.

Is it lack of understanding or simply a difference in priorities?

It's very fashionable around here to call millions of people stupid for not sharing whatever the "right" opinion is.

Re: Economic costs of war

#229

Post by dlp211 »

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.

There is no such thing as asset inflation. If the price of assets is going up, then they are going up. It sucks that housing is considered an asset (it shouldn't, it should be a consumable) but that is the long and short of it. And you can't have an average 2% inflation target and underperform that target for a decade+, then complain when there is inflation above 2%(which is transitory and caused by simultaneous demand and supply shocks due to covid).

Re: Economic costs of war

#230

Post by ericmay »

throwawaysea wrote: post #205
api wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or not? Maybe it’s China’s turn to burn trillions in Afghanistan.

China is likely to gain trillions from their belt and road initiative expanding into Afghanistan and from getting involved with the mining of the $3T in mineral resources identified previously in Afghanistan. China has already recognized the new Taliban government and the Taliban previously welcomed a new relationship with China that would protect Chinese interests, as they put it. China literally met with the incomi…

Riiiight. With all those ports, infrastructure, and nice easy mountain terrain to navigate.

And let’s say China does somehow befriend the Taliban and build all this infrastructure, and import hundreds of thousands of workers that somehow the Taliban doesn’t decide are yet another empire to kick out. What do you think they do with these resources? They make iPhones. That westerners buy.

And again, even if they do somehow make this happen. Why should anybody care? It’s not like the US is losing these resources or something. And why would China, as large of a country as it is, need these resources? Is it even profitable to extract?

I keep seeing this narrative and it seems to me to be hugely superficial at best. China and Russia would probably prefer the U.S. just keep wasting money and attention in Afghanistan.

Post reply on HN