Q: why are not the american people in the streets in protest/?

Submitted by Jack Tuten from Pelahatchie Ms

A: Hard to know for sure, but one reason is that the sacrifice in this wra is not widely shared. The average person in America is not paying higher txes for the war (because we borrowed all the money to pay for the war), and is not at risk of sending their loved ones to fight (because there is no draft).

Answered 04/03/08 22:24:21 by Linda Bilmes

Q: The 600 Billion is the amount of money spent through the use of emergency supplementals. The budget includes the normal costs of the military, such as salaries, administration, and routine supplies. Since many of these budgeted costs are being used to support the Iraqi war, shouldn't the up-front figure already be nearly 1 trillion? Shouldn't we consider the total military costs (both budgeted and supplemental) when looking at costs?

Submitted by Gene Smith from Chambersburg, PA

A: In ourt book, one of the costs we count is the hidden cost of money in the regular defense budget that has been directly or indirectly spent as a result of the Iraq war. The total regular defense budget has increased by $500 billion, cumulatively, since 2001 and we estimate that 1/4 of that is due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Examples include the increased cost of recruiting, enlistment bonuses, re-enlistment bonuses, increased combat pay,pay increases beyond the expected increases, and increases in military medical coss for reservists and National Guards. But We do not include the cost of the regular pay for the military because we would be paying that anyway, regardless of war or peacetime.

Answered 04/03/08 22:22:26 by Linda Bilmes

Q: how much cash has gone to the profiteers, blackwater, halliburton, etc. bush's uncle reportedly cleared 450 million profit on defense stock sales right at the beginning of the war. any way to sort that out?

Submitted by jim from austin texas

A: Very hard to estimate how much money has been lost to war profiteering. There is at least $3-7 billion over which the Pentagon has "lost visibility" and cannot be traced, though difficult to track down where that money has ended up.

Answered 04/03/08 22:19:04 by Linda Bilmes

Q: I believe you have looked closely at the probable costs for the care of wounded Iraq vets. Can you give some examples of the typical costs for some of the more prevalent treatments, especially the ones which require lifetime treatment. (Fro example, I have a friend who lost a leg in Vietnam, and he has to go periodically to the VA to have adjustments made on his prosthesis.)

Submitted by Bob Gaines from Santa Fe NM

A: We have estimated based on the average costs per veteran per year, for the estimated humber of veterans who are likely to seek treatment. It is difficult to estimate the costs for a specific injury, though for an amputation one can predict costs associated with surgery, rehabilitation, orthopedics, prothetics, physiotherapy, and ongoing diagnostic testing and pain medication, as well as remodelling of household stairs and configuration, and possible vocational rehabilitation/retraining.

Answered 04/03/08 22:16:52 by Linda Bilmes

Q: What happened to all the Iraqi oil money that was supposed to help defer the costs of this war?

Submitted by Jennifer from Wilmington, NC

A: This is a good question. Since the war, Iraqi oil production declined for quite a while and it is now finally reaching pre-war levels. However the country is earning more revenue for the same amount of production due to the increase in oil prices. Despite this, the US has to pay full market prices for all the oil we use in Iraq for fuel (apart from a certain amount that is subsidized by Kuwait). It is unclear where the current proceeds of the Irai oil production are ending up.

Answered 04/03/08 22:13:39 by Linda Bilmes

Q: Who are these the largest profiteers from these war costs.

Submitted by Oscuramento from St.Hilaire de Brethmas

A: The biggest winners are the oil companies and the large defense contractors. Clearly the firm that has benefitted the most, in terms of the increase in its stock price, is Halliburton. It has also been able to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars of US taxes each year by employing its workers through shell companies in the Cayman Islands.

Answered 04/03/08 22:11:06 by Linda Bilmes

Q: I've seen all sorts of figures bandied about as to how much the war has cost. Can you provide an estimate of the cost of the Iraq war from it's inception to this point.

Submitted by Mel Wolfson from Brooklyn, NY

A: There is actually relatively little disagreement about the costs of the war. What is clear is that the costs are much, much larger than the Administration said at the beginning--they said it would cost $50 to $60 billion. We are now spending that amount, up front, every 3 months. The differences in estimates mainly arise because the numbers are changing daily: we are spending more than $12 billion a month. That means that every day that passes, the number has grown. These are, however, only the up front costs, and the costs that the government publicly admits to. Any full cost accounting, for instance, has to include deferred compensation--what our troops will receive in the future (any business firm would include such costs in its accounts, but the government hasn't been doing this.) Especially significant are the costs for compensating and caring for the disabled. Approximately 40% of the 1.65 million troops that are already there are likely to have some disability--and many will have very, very serious disabilities. Equipment has been wearing out far faster than it has been replaced. This is called deferred maintenance, and again, it is a cost that any business would include. Our book goes beyond these costs to include the costs to the economy--not just the budgetary costs to the federal governmetn. For instance, the government's future budgetary costs only includes the costs it pays for caring for the soldiers and their disability pay. But in one of five families with somebody who is seriously injured, someone will have to drop out of the labor force to care for the returning soldier. All told, these additional costs more than double the $600 billion "offical" price tag of the war so far.

Answered 04/02/08 11:28:38 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q: Does anyone have any good ideas as to how to pay for this war. Granted it will cost trillions, but since we cannot ask for a refund, how do we go about closing the books on it?

Submitted by bill liedel from Royal Oak, MI

A: There are but two ways: cut other expenditures or increase taxes. The problem is that many areas (other than defense) have been cut to the bone. America has been underinvesting in public infrastructure and research, and this is hurting our productivity. We will have to raise taxes on upper income Americans. But these individuals have done so well over the past 25 years that they can well afford it--they can pay higher taxes and still be much better off than they were say eight years ago. By contrast, those in the middle are actually worse off today (adjusted for inflation) than they were eight years ago. We are entering a new recession even before they have recovered from thelast one. In these circumstances, it will be hard to impose new taxes on them. The biggest area for cutting expenditures is defense. We are now spending close to 50% of what the entire world spends on defense. There is a growing consensus that we are wasting much of this money. We are spending money on weapons that don't work against enemies that don't exist. By restructuring our defense expenditures, we could actually have more security at lower costs.

Answered 04/02/08 11:20:52 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q: After the Vietnam War we were beset with almost uncontrollable inflation. Will this happen, likewise, with the Iraq war?

Submitted by Ardent hollingsworth from Atlanta

A: Probably not, though there is a point in common: in both wars, there was an attempt to hide from the American people the true cost of the war. In both cases, there was an attempt to persuade Americans that they could have a war without sacrificing anything. This war, however, may be far more devastating in the long run for our economy. The war let lose huge increases in oil. Money spent on oil was money that was not available to spend at home. It weakened our economy. So too for war expenditures: spending money on a Nepalese contractor working in Iraq doesn't stimulate the eocnomy as much as the same money spent building schools or investing in researchy at home would have done. Moreover, it doesn't contribute to future higher living standards and increases in productivity. The war thus exerted a downward pressure on the economy. The fed offset this with a flood of liquidity; this, together with lax regulations, gave rise to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, that offset the depressing effects just described. But we were just postponing the day of reckoning. Now we have the worst of all possible worlds. The high oil prices are, at least, beginning to have an impact on prices; inflation is increasing. But at the same time, the economy is going into a recession. Making matters worse, the government's room to maneuver has been circumscribed by the huge deficits. This is the big difference (even admitted to by Fed Chair and former Bush economic advisor Bernanke) between now and 2001. Then we had a large surplus. This allowed the government to take offsetting actions.

Answered 04/02/08 11:15:28 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q: e Congress seems to continue to authorize the financial support of this war even though a majority of American's now oppose it, because of the popular belief that we must "support the troops" even if we do not support the war. At what cost? If it was decided to end the financial support of this war, today, there are still costs yet to be incurred; the cost of redeployment, caring for the sick and wounded soldiers that return (not to mention shattered families) and the inevitable rebuilding of the armed forces. In this regard, is it possible to estimate (or even imagine) the complete cost of this war....and do you think it will ever be fully paid for? Are we still paying for any past wars? How much can the "most affluent country in the world" afford to pay, before the stiff reality of debt catches up with us and forces us into national bankruptcy where we experience inflation at the rate as similarly astonishing as Zimbabwe's 100,000+%?

Submitted by Jenny from Woodbridge, VA

A: You are right on. Our book tries to calculate all of these future costs. There will be a peace dividend if we leave, but it will be smaller than many people imagine, because of these costs which we will have to pay, even if we were to withdraw tomorrow. We estimate that the cost of compensating and caring for the disabled veterans alone will exceed a half trillion dollars, and will extend over decades. Veterans costs for World War II didn't peak until more than 40 years after the cessation of hostilities. We are now paying $4.3 billion every year for disability benefits for veterans of the first gulf war, a war that lasted only a month. What is unique about this war is that it has been totally debt financed--the costs passed on completely to our children. When we went to war we had a large deficit. Yet, unbelievable as it may seem, the Bush Administration asked for and got a tax cut for the richest Americans within months after going to war. 40% of that debt has been financed by foreigners--the first time we have had to turn to foreigners to finance a war since the revolutionary war. The administration tried to persuade the american people that they could have a war for free. No one had to sacrifice (except the troops who were fighting, and their families). But there is no such thing as a free lunch, and no such thing as a free war. We, as a country, will be paying for the war for years to come, in one way or another.

Answered 04/02/08 11:06:50 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q: How much has the war cost to date?

Submitted by Carol Acevedo from Neptune, NJ

A: The upfront costs--what the government admits to spending--is around $600 billion. But there are additional costs hidden in other departments. The war has driven up the costs of recruiting troops--and even with signup bonuses and higher pay, recruitment standards have been lowered. A smaller fraction are high school graduates, a larger fraction convicted felons. But these costs are not in the totals reported under "Iraq costs." There are costs to other departments--the labor department picks up the costs of insuring the contractors. but most importantly, there are bills yet to be paid--equipment has been wearing out faster than its replaced; and most importantly, huge future costs for compensating the hundreds of thousands of returning troops who will suffer disabilities and paying for their health care costs. We are now spending $12 billion a month up front, but these additional costs add substantially to the total.

Answered 04/02/08 11:00:28 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q: Could you provide in clear "average joe" terminology what the 3 trillion dollar figure means to people on main street, e.g. how many people do not get health insurance because of the cost of the war; how many people die prematurely because prevention efforts have been cut in the health field; how many bridges/highways don't get fixed, etc. etc. You may already have itemized that in your book but I have not had a chance to read it yet. I think when the American people realize how much they have been shafted and the war profiteers have been hugely rewarded, there will be some hell to pay. I hope so. Thank you.

Submitted by lola heiler from boston ma

A: In the book, we do try to translated $3 trillion into terms that can be grasped. One way of thinking about it is that the President said America's social security system was broken, that as a result America's future was at risk. Just the cost of paying health care and disability payments for returning veterans has created an unfunded liability of more than $600 billion--an unfunded liability comparable to some estimates of the gap in our social security system. To put it another way, we could put social security on sound financial footings for the next 50 to 75 years for a fraction of what this war has cost the economy. In the book, we describe other ways of grasping these huge numbers--what an hour's fighting, a day's fighting, or a month's fighting would have paid for. The President vetoed the program to provide health insurance for America's children; as a reuslt, there are some poor children who will not get the medical care they need, impairing their future lives and productivity. The president said we could not afford it. What he was talking about was the cost of a few days of the Iraq war.

Answered 04/02/08 10:56:26 by Joseph Stiglitz

Q: Ordinary folks have a hard time putting their heads around numbers...especially "big" numbers. Can you put $3 trillion in more "layman-like" terms? For example, Americans are getting back $600 each as a tax-refund economic incentive this year. How much would they get, lump sum, if $3 trillion were split among them? How many years would it take for each citizen to deplete his/her share if that sum were doled out in $600 annual installments?

Submitted by Robert from Boston, MA

A: That is an excellent way of thinking about $3 trillion. There are somewhat more than 100 million American families. That means that the war is costing each family $30,000. Or 50 times the $600 rebate.

Answered 04/02/08 10:50:33 by Joseph Stiglitz