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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (26390)	2/25/2008 2:11:32 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "...even altered the cost is likely to go up rapidly in nominal, and perhaps in real, dollar terms." Up, yes. But not possible to rise above 100% of GNP. But the GDP is growing. Also long term costs can be far above the GDP of any particular year. In fact, the practical limit is likely to be far lower then 100%. The nation would collapse, and the people revolt in an actual, not a metaphorical, rebellion FAR BEFORE 100% take was ever reached. A quadrillion nominal dollars is likely (at least baring major disaster for the US, where "major" is defined such that the destruction, and costs, and deaths we faced from WWII wouldn't qualify) to be a small fraction of the total US GDP for the next 200 years. Not that my real point is mainly about 200 years, I don't think the costs can be calculated accurately over anywhere near that many years (but as I stated before the inaccuracy can be in either direction), I through that figure out for shock value to open people's mind up to the point that a large program that goes on indefinitely is going to have costs that dwarf current short term considerations. Try calculating out only 30 years, and use real dollars, and you get only trillions not quadrillions, but you still get a figure that makes the costs from Iraq seem tiny. Re: [interest on the war debt - which is limited to the weighted average lifespan of the government bonds sold to incur it.] "Not really, it gets rolled over." That would merely add MORE INTEREST EXPENSES, not reduce them. Which I noted. Such action would, of course, strengthen my argument. And I already said that it would (although it doesn't strengthen it enough)