Economics 101 - Evidence Based Decision Making

Let's look at the cost of the Iraq war: ALL costs of this war are on Schrubbiea's costs because he put us there with no exit strategy, and no strategy to "win the peace" ... and he sent us there on a pack of lies and no honest plan to pay for it.

quote:

---

Counting the costs of the Iraq war

​

​

The monetary cost would have been worth it if the result of the Iraq war would have been a better life for the Iraqi people. While they were freed from the tyrant Saddam Hussein, it was at the cost of more than a hundred thousand deaths, more than a million (mainly Christian) refugees, the destruction of the nation’s physical infrastructure, the unleashing of sectarian conflict. If such had been the result of Soviet intervention into a country, we Americans would rightly condemn it.

​

Responses to Counting the costs of the Iraq war

​

zahidhkhalid Says:
March 21, 2013 at 9:45 am | Reply

​

Dear Mr. Phil Ebersole,

​

This is what Obama said in October 2002 when he was a Senator:

​

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

​

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

​

Famous Quotes From "Slaughterhouse-Five" by Kurt Vonnegut

​

This is what the spokesman of Bush said:

​

The invasion of Iraq was going to be a cakewalk, and the cost would be paid out of Iraq oil revenues.

---

So Obama was right, before the war, Schrubbia was dismally wrong, and Obama is now saddled with the ongoing explosion of costs from the ill-conceived and poorly executed invasion of Iraq. He did not ask for this cost, but he does have to budget for it, and it certainly is part of the deficit spending, and will be until the costs are paid for, be it 10 years or 20 years down the line ... and it is Bushes deficit spending because he failed to budget for it and instead put it on credit for future presidents to pay ... with interest ...Spendthrift careless give-away spending typical of modern GOP.I'm curious how you explain this in your view of things.Enjoy

Not always the case. The wage-earner may be under-compensated for many reasons, not just because competition exists for his job.Either way, the economic aspects of each are indistinguishable from one another.

And you might remain curious forever. Looks like mikechell has given up on EvC for good.

Nonsense. Chattel slavery and "wage slavery" are thoroughly different economic paradigms.Another example: an employer can get rid of a redundant employee by simply having security escort him off the property. You don't do that with a slave because he's still worth money. And even if you decide to write him off, an "enlightened" slave society doesn't want you tossing him in the landfill like a worn-out drill bit.No matter how badly you exploit your workers, hiring somebody is fundamentally different from owning him.

I'd add, owning him and his wife, and all of his descendants is fundamentally different economically from bad pay.

Whatever ringo. If you want to ignore the last two hundred some years of labor history, have at it.Like I said, I'm not gonna argue about terminology.

You're the one who is ignoring history by using a poor comparison. "Wage slave" is a figurative term. It's no more appropriate here than calling Donald Trump "satanic". Well, you're going to get an argument if you persist in using incorrect terminology.

Did I use the term 'wage slave' or do you want to go back and actually read what I've written?

Yes, you did. You said that under-paying people is slavery:

quote:

---

And what do we call it when people are not compensated for the productivity of their labor?

​

Slavery of course. Message 3

---

Quit while you're behind.

C'mon, ringo; if I used the term 'wage slave' you would have quoted me using the term 'wage slave'.You're just being funny now.

I did.Really, stop making a bigger fool of yourself.

You quoted me using the term 'slavery'. Yet 'wage slave' is a specific term with a specific meaning, and that meaning has not been a meaning I've intended in anything I've said.So again, ringo, if I used the word 'wage slave' just point out where I did.Or admit that the notion of 'wage slave' was something you injected into the discussion and have been trying to pass off as my argument: a strawman.

Maybe you should just make your intention clearer.

Maybe if you don't think I'm being clear you can ask me to clarify instead of making shit up.Where have I been unclear and how can I clarify?

As I quoted:

quote:

---

And what do we call it when people are not compensated for the productivity of their labor?

​

Slavery of course. Message 3

---

No, that is not what "we" call it - "we" being adults who are trying to have a discussion about economics. "We" call it "people not being compensated for the productivity of their labour". If "you" want to equate that with slavery, you'll have to do better than "Jon sez so".