Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Enigma who wrote (2919)	3/25/2003 4:25:12 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Sceptical of the stories of Basra uprising. May be true but much of the information so far has been disinformation Precisely. So far, the plan to have the Iraqis do our fighting for us has failed miserably. Tom

To: Enigma who wrote (2919)	3/25/2003 4:26:41 PM
From: Just_Observing	Respond to of 21614

May be true but much of the information so far has been disinformation Hey, we need something for our money. Apart from all those maimed and killed. At least some disinformation. After all, we may spend trillions. A compassionate conservative would never waste money. Or blood. US and British taxpayers could pay the price for a conflict that may cost trillions of dollars By Philip Thornton 25 March 2003 news.independent.co.uk As the hawks in Washington keep reminding the world, freedom is not free. In fact the true cost of liberating Iraq could run into trillions of dollars. But how much will it cost the UK taxpayer? The Government has so far set aside £1.75bn to cover its share, while yesterday President George Bush asked Congress for $62bn (£39bn) to pay for the war. A history of recent conflicts show the final costs are much higher than the original forecasts. First, wars do not run to the exact timelines drawn up the generals. Second, most estimates only cover defence spending. Most calculations omit the post-war costs and the non-military costs that follow conflict. In terms of the short-run costs, the UK Treasury insists it will not give a running update. Gordon Brown recently pledged the Government would "spend whatever it takes" and the Chancellor is expected to issue updated figures in the Budget on 9 April. Early estimates of a war, perhaps understandably, are based on a short and successful conclusion. But as this weekend's events showed that cannot be guaranteed. And once it comes to drafting "worst case" scenarios, as far as the possible cost is concerned, the sky's the limit. On top of the initial military costs, one must add in costs of supporting an army for a prolonged period of time, installing a substantial occupation force, investment into reconstruction and nation-building and, finally, the impact on the economy of the war costs and a possible surge in oil prices. One detailed attempt to calibrate the total cost, carried out by Professor William Nordhaus of Yale University, showed the cost would balloon from £80bn for a short war up to about £1 trillion for a protracted and messy conflict. This would compare with a total bill of $76bn (£48bn) in today's money for the 1991 Gulf War, although contributions from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan reduced the net cost to just $4bn (£2.5bn). This time around, given the strength of hostility in both the Western and Arab worlds, the cost would be shouldered by the American and British taxpayers. Writing in the World Today, the monthly magazine of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vincent Cable said the economic impact of a war could be very varied. While the boost to demand from extra military spending would normally support economic growth, in the current environment it could lead to higher state borrowing that would fuel already excessive current account deficits. This in turn could trigger a fall in the dollar that would undermine stock markets and in turn cause a collapse in consumer confidence and spending. "The longer the war goes on the greater the risk of a more serious shock and greater costs," said Mr Cable, the Liberal Democrat trade and industry spokesman. On top of this comes the impact of any surge in the oil price. Graeme Leach, chief economist at the Institute of Directors, lays out six possible military options ranging from instant capitulation to a regional meltdown. In the benign scenario oil falls to $20 a barrel, the stock market jumps 5 per cent and economic growth is unaffected. In this case the bill for the UK might be £2bn or 0.25 per cent of GDP. At the other end of the spectrum, oil surges to $80, the stock market collapses by 30 per cent and there is a property crash. In this case the full financial impact is probably beyond calculation. 25 March 2003 15:38