Opportunity costs

[jhetley]

There's this concept in economics (or was, *mumble* years ago when I took two semesters of the Dismal Science) called "opportunity costs." It's the point on the balance sheet where you take into account what you _could_ have done with the money or other resources for a project, for cost/benefit ratios and such. Would those resources be spent more profitably elsewhere?

Anyway, with Shrub's pending announcement on Iraq, I contemplate what we could have done with those Iraq resources elsewhere, over the last several years. Even assuming all the blood, wealth, time, and equipment was still spent on war, where would Afghanistan be today if we channeled our efforts there, rather than moving the Taliban and Osama to the back burner?

Comments

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

Afghanistan is one thing, but with that much money and (alleged) experience one might even be rebuilding New Orleans and giving thousands of Americans new jobs, clean drinking water, and electricity 24/7.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Oh, you want to spend Government money constructively? I was assuming that all that wealth was "earmarked" for killing people and blowing things up. Typical pork, sorta like setting funds aside for building bridges to nowhere.

I left the other categories as an exercise for the student.

[quilzas.livejournal.com]

I've long been of the opinion that 'we' should be cost effective when dealing with annoying little countries that for some reason 'we' decide to take an interest in. Don't send troops. Don't send arms and train them how to fight. Drop several bombs, make an actual example out of them, and put money elsewhere. Don't rebuild them. Let the handful of scattered farmers and herders to that. Assuming caring is worth that much effort.

'We' stick 'our' noses in too many goddamn places (pardon my French).