SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (347892)8/22/2007 10:16:17 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1574288
 
A trillion plus might be the eventual cost in Iraq, or the cost if you include indirect costs and interest. If you include eventual and indirect costs for a very strong enforced anti-global warming effort the cost could be quadrillions (world wide, not adjusted for inflation, long time period, including lost compounding on investments that would have been made with the money), or with more normal time frames (say within a decade) could easily be many trillions, far greater than Iraq.

In many ways the cost for Iraq is irrelevant. You can take any very expensive proposed action, and say "well Iraq costs $500bil", or "Iraq costs $1tril and we did it". That might be a useful rhetorical device but beyond that its meaningless. The money already spent in Iraq is sunk costs. The money yet to be spent in Iraq could be debated but its a separate issue, except to the extent that it might crowd out other expensive initiatives.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News