Our original estimate of the cost of the Iraq war was too conservative: in reality the cost for the US will be much higher. 我們原先估計的生產成本，對伊拉克戰爭過於保守：在現實中的成本，美國將高得多。

By Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes由約瑟夫施蒂格利茨和琳達比爾姆斯
The Guardian衛

President Bush has tried to give the impression that the $3 trillion dollar estimate of the total cost of the war that we provide in our new book may be exaggerated.美國總統布什曾試圖給人一種印象，以為3000000000000美元美元的估計總成本的那場戰爭，我們所提供的，在我們新的書可能被誇大。

We believe that it is in fact conservative.我們認為，它實際上是在保守的。 Even the president would have to admit that the $50 to $60 billion estimate given by the administration before the war was wildly off the mark; there is little reason to have confidence in their arithmetic.連總統將不得不承認， 50元，以600億美元的預算，由政府在戰前是不著邊際商標的，而是有其理由很少有信心，在他們的算術。 They admit to a cost so far of $600 billion.他們承認，以成本至今的6000億美元。

Our numbers differ from theirs for three reasons: first, we are estimating the total cost of the war, under alternative conservative scenarios, derived from the defence department and congressional budget office.我們的號碼他們不同的原因有三：首先，我們估計總成本的戰爭，根據替代保守的方案，來自國防部和國會預算辦公室。 We are not looking at McCain’s 100-year scenario - we assume that we are there, in diminished strength, only through to 2017.我們不是看麥凱恩的100年的情景-我們假設，我們的責任是，在削弱實力，只有通過到2 017年。 But neither are we looking at a scenario that sees our troops pulled out within six months.但是，我們也看一個情景處處是我們的部隊離開後6個月內。 With operational spending going on at $12 billion a month, and with every year costing more than the last, it is easy to come to a total operational cost that is double the $600 billon already spent.與業務支出持續在120億美元，一個月後，與每年的費用多於過去，很容易得出一個總的運作成本，即增加一倍，為600元億，已經用了。

Second, we include war expenditures hidden elsewhere in the budget, and budgetary expenditures that we would have to incur in the future even if we left tomorrow.第二，我們包括戰爭支出隱藏在其他地方的預算，和預算支出的，我們將要付出，在未來即使我們離開的明天。 Most important of these are future costs of caring for the 40% of returning veterans that are likely to suffer from disabilities (in excess of $600 billion; second world war veterans’ costs didn’t peak until 1993), and restoring the military to its prewar strength.最重要的是，這些都是未來成本的愛心，為40 ％的回老兵有可能患上殘疾人（超過6000億美元;第二次世界大戰的退伍軍人的費用並沒有達到頂峰，直到1993年） ，並恢復軍事其戰前的實力。 If you include interest, and interest on the interest - with all of the war debt financed - the budgetary costs quickly mount.如果你包括利息和利息，對利息-所有的戰爭債務融資-預算費用迅速上升。

Finally, our $3 trillion dollars estimate also includes costs to the economy that go beyond the budget, for instance the cost of caring for the huge number of returning disabled veterans that go beyond the costs borne by the federal government - in one out of five families with a serious disability, someone has to give up a job.最後，我們的3000000000000美元美元估算，還包括成本，以經濟超出預算，例如成本的關懷，為數量龐大的回流傷殘軍人表示，超出費用由聯邦政府-在五個人中就有一個家庭一個嚴重殘疾，有人放棄了一份工作。 The macro-economic costs are even larger.宏觀的經濟代價更大。 Almost every expert we have talked to agrees that the war has had something to do with the rise in the price of oil; it was not just an accident that oil prices began to soar at the same time as the war began.幾乎每一個專家，我們已經談過同意說，這場戰爭已經有所為與上升的石油價格，它不只是一個意外，石油價格開始飆升，在同一時間，隨著戰爭的開始。

We have been criticised, but for being excessively conservative, for including only $5 to $10 of the $75 to $85 increase in the price of oil since then.我們被批評，但被過分保守，其中只有5元至10元的75元至85元增加，在原油價格自那時以來。 Money spent on the war - on a Nepalese contractor working in Iraq - does not stimulate the economy as much as money spent on hospitals or research or schools at home.花的錢，對戰爭-對一名尼泊爾籍承包商在伊拉克工作-沒有刺激經濟多達花的錢，對醫院或研究或學校在家中。 These contractionary effects were temporarily covered up, hidden, by the flood of liquidity and lax regulations that led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom - with household savings plummeting to zero.這些緊縮的影響，暫時掩蓋了，隱蔽的，由氾濫的流動性和寬鬆的規定，導致了房地產泡沫和消費的繁榮-與家庭儲蓄直線下降到零。 But this simply postponed paying these costs - and increased them.不過，這只是推遲了支付這些費用-增加了他們。

With the exception of a few lonely surviving supply-siders, most economists believe that deficits matter, and the huge deficits to finance the war will have their toll in the long run.與除少數倖存的寂寞供應siders ，大多數經濟學家認為，赤字問題，以及巨額經常項目赤字，以資助戰爭都會有他們的收費在長遠之計。 Deficits matter in both the short run and the long.赤字問題，在這兩個短期而言性和長期性。 They help crowd out private investment that would have stimulated the economy far more than the war expenditures; and the reduced investments reduce long-run productivity.他們幫助排擠私人投資，這將刺激了經濟的遠遠多於戰爭的支出和減少投資，減少長期運行效率。 With 40% of the funds borrowed from abroad, Americans will be sending interest payments abroad - lowering living standards at home.與40 ％的資金是借用國外，美國人將派遣利息支付在國外-降低生活水平，在家裡。 Finally, even Fed Chair Bernanke (formerly the president’s economic adviser) admits that the deficits have reduced the room to manoeuvre - the ability of the government to respond to the looming economic crisis.最後，即使美聯儲主席伯南克（前身為總統的經濟顧問） ，承認該赤字已減少了活動餘地-政府是否有能力，以應對迫在眉睫的經濟危機。

Spending so much on the war has economic consequences, even if you don’t think there is any connection between the war and the economy’s current woes.花了這麼多關於戰爭的經濟後果，即使你不認為有任何關係的結束和經濟的目前的困境。

In adding up the quantifiable costs of the war, it is hard not to come up with a number in excess of $3 trillion.在添加了可以量化的戰爭費用，這是很難不來，拿出了一批超過3萬億美元。 In putting a $3 trillion price tag on the war, we believe we have been excessively conservative - a $4 or $5 trillion tag would be more reasonable.在把3000000000000美元價格標籤上的戰爭，我們相信我們已經過分保守-一個4元或5 000000000000美元標籤將被更合理。 And remember - this is just the cost for America.記住-這只是成本為美國。

Joseph E. Stiglitz is university professor at Columbia University and was the recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics.斯蒂格利茨是大學教授，在哥倫比亞大學，並領取了2001年諾貝爾經濟學獎。 Linda Bilmes teaches at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.琳達比爾姆斯任教於美國哈佛大學肯尼迪政府學院的。 They are the co-authors of the recently published book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict.他們是共同作者最近出版的書中30000.0億美元的戰爭：真正成本的伊拉克衝突。

Comment on '$3 Trillion May Be Too Low' : 評論' 3000000000000美元可能過低' ：

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News: 相關新聞：