Some time in 2005, Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, who also served as an economic adviser under Clinton, noted that the official Congressional Budget Office estimate for the cost of the war so far was of the order of $500bn. The figure was so low, they didn't believe it, and decided to investigate. The paper they wrote together, and published in January 2006, revised the figure sharply upwards, to between $1 and $2 trillion. Even that, Stiglitz says now, was deliberately conservative: "We didn't want to sound outlandish."Link (Thanks, Robert!)So what did the Republicans say? "They had two reactions," Stiglitz says wearily. "One was Bush saying, 'We don't go to war on the calculations of green eye-shaded accountants or economists.' And our response was, 'No, you don't decide to fight a response to Pearl Harbour on the basis of that, but when there's a war of choice, you at least use it to make sure your timing is right, that you've done the preparation. And you really ought to do the calculations to see if there are alternative ways that are more effective at getting your objectives. The second criticism - which we admit - was that we only look at the costs, not the benefits. Now, we couldn't see any benefits. From our point of view we weren't sure what those were."
Mark Frauenfelder is the founder of Boing Boing and the editor-in-chief of MAKE and Cool Tools. Twitter: @frauenfelder. Come and hear Mark speak at the ALA conference in Chicago on July 1.
More at Boing Boing
-
Anonymous
-
Paul Maurice Martin
-
Stefan Jones
-
Takuan
-
JorgeBurgos
-
Moon
-
Takuan
-
mdhatter
-
gollux
-
samfromintroniche
-
unstoppable
-
WarLord
-
Spinobobot
-
help i cant comfirm my username themelonbread
-
Takuan
-
flyingdutchman
-
Takuan
-
flyingdutchman
-
coaxial
-
noen
-
Carl Rigney
-
raisedbywolves
-
Takuan
-
blueface
-
David Carroll












