Let’s engage in a back of the envelope exercise for a moment: the cost of conservatism to America. Right wingers want to de-emphasize the costs, and pump up the virtues. They want to account for every penny of liberal projects but declare that conservative projects have no price. Take Lawrence Lindsey for example. The Iraq War is a treasure beyond price. But he offers a standard: what’s the value over 15 years, with 300 trillion of total output? Well let’s break down the cost in a kind of rough and ready way.
The costs of conservatism, in a bi-partisan form, are those things that can’t be fixed by a Democratic President because they have become part of the political landscape: over-financialization of the American economy, the waste of privatized health care, over militarization of the American economy, and the externalization of global warming. Each one of these things has a cost in GDP, and we can take that total over Lindsey’s preferred time frame of 15 years. Then we can ask what that costs in the present.
The cost of not having comprehensive national health care is roughly 5% of GDP because America spends 15% of GDP on health care, and a comprehensive system generally saves 1/3 over privatized systems. The cost of over financialization is estimated by Krugman to be 3% of GDP. The difference between the Bush defense department, including the neo-colonial wars, is 2% of GDP, that’s defense plus .
The cost of global warming? Harder to say, in 2005, the mean of estimates surveyed by Tol was 93 dollars a ton. The news has gotten worse since then, with many of the low estimates that dragged down the median already being disproved. But let’s be cautious and take that number for the moment. That’s 4% of GDP, but we have to take the present value of that first, since it is over a long time horizon – from that we get roughly 2% of GDP. I could easily double this number by tossing out the large numbers of estimates which rely on scenarios which have already been trashed by the facts.
Added up, this is 12% of output, or using Lindsey’s 15 year time frame 36 trillion dollars. These problems reinforce each other, insurance companies shift output from other activities, to financial ones. Spending on wars means there is less productive manufacturing, and more war manufacturing, pushing effort into juggling money. Tax breaks drain investment from private enterprise, making it harder, seemingly to shift the economy. In other words, we are like the person who drinks too much because they smoke too much.
So what’s the value of that, right now? Well, taking a real interest rate of 2%, that’s the historical value roughly, and compounding monthly, that’s a present value of 27 trillion real 2008 dollars. Or about twice the value of everything Americans are going to do this year. Ross Perot and others like to talk about the cost of unfunded liabilities, like Social Security and Medicare, running to a present future value of 40 trillion. It’s the same kind of back of the envelope number as presented here – based on a present future value of estimates of a long term stream. This means that the cost, over 15 years, of conservatism to America, is two thirds of the supposed crisis in costs – out to an infinite time horizon.
So what does this exercise mean? It’s really very simple: we can afford a decent retirement and decent living standards, and decent medicine for ourselves and our children and grand children, or we can afford the casino games that we have played, and the massive parade ground military that we have built over the last generation. But not both. The costs of the war and bad economic policy flow all through the economy.
The reality is that liberalism isn’t broken. The reality, contra the film IOU-USA, is that the national debt is a symptom not a cause. The real cause is that Americans have voted for certain things – a huge military, a casino economy, and an anti-science bias – cost be damned. Well the cost is damning, it is damning us to this recession, and it is going to damn us to a very poor recovery on the other side of it.
Yes, these are back of the envelope numbers, but we’ve been living on pulled from flatulant air numbers on things like WMD in Iraq, the cost of the Bush tax package, the future of global warming, and the value of Mortgage Backed Securities.




50 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
All brought to you by your friends at The Chicago School of Economic Phrenology.
well, i don’tknow how to reason with the thugs. those costs are non negotiable in their thinking. that’s why dems need to control it all. sad to say there is no middle ground.
Great post, thanks Stirling.
digg
Thanks, Stirling. Sobered me right up.
did i miss the moment in history when the dems chose universal health care instead of a huge military and a casino economy?
The ultimate cost of allowing global warming…wall street casino rip offs and bailouts plus the never ending zion war with the rest of the muslin countries will wreck the American democracy, the Anerican economy and the American freedoms.
I would put freedoms at the top of the list:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I want my freedoms back.
No, nor have you missed one significant hint that they are anywhere near a tipping point.
Good points Stirling…where can we get a good supply of backbones to stand up tho the corporate powers and take our country back…you know the one that the rest of the world admired and copied. I can’t even afford to have one tooth fixed and that pisses me off Mr. George “crime family” Bush.
I don’t see any way out of our Great Military Adventurism except a very hard crash that requires the rest of the world to put some strict limits on us. All those unemployed generals will have a very difficult time adjusting to the new service economy, I imagine.
Conservatism cost we the people
!. But not the conservatives
2. Conservative can have the best of everything
3. No jobs no problem for conservatives just spend a little of those profits
4. Taking our freedoms is way over the top
Conservatism equals Authoritarianism…we know what is best for you…previuosly known as benevolent despotism. The king took all the peoples money for wars I read that in the ninth grade. That is why we had the American Revolution. These people are traitors not conservatives.
Doormen
Speaking of costs, does anyone have any information on this thing? The Financial Times story says that it is not specifically aimed at hedge funds but they are anticipated to be a major customer of this new facility. I don’t understand why we want to help out with a demand for leverage right now, but perhaps I misunderstand.
12.20.08 — 2:19PM
Hedge Fund Bail Out
The Fed has set up … the Term Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility, which will offer “low-cost three-year funding to any US company investing in securitized consumer loans” including hedge funds.
…
–Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..249017.php
Additional info from the Financial Times Story {behind registration firewall):
—
… hedge funds have complained that they cannot get the leverage they need to arbitrage away excessive spreads and meet high hurdle rates of return.
—-
“Demand is there for leverage but not supply,” [says analyst]
—-
the Fed will now take on the role of prime broker – the lead bank that lends to a hedge fund – for specific assets.
dems are responsible as well so far. the public needs to find a way to gab both parties by the balls. dems are a bit easier to work with. that’s all.
can’t they just become soldiers of fortune or arms dealers?
Facility for dealing with hedge fund managers
http://www.bop.gov/locations/i…../index.jsp
the dem pols think they are smart enough to walk us right up to the edge of the cliff – and then when the republicans push us over the edge they say, “who could have predicted…?”
The public, everybody should disabuse themselves that there is significant difference in the substance of either Republican or
DinocrDemocratic parties. The Republican marque is for the time being destroyed, the Democratic marque bears the taint of the same corruption. Far better, retire those bloody flags of identification and start afresh.BTW, thanks for the post. Back of the envolope estimates are good to know. I hope more attention to is paid to the fact that (I believe) most reputable and knowedgeable economists who have looked at the global warming problem have come around to saying the problem needs to be addressed starting now. The climate change skeptics still cite some as skeptics, falsely, I think.
William Nordhaus is one often cited, but he is advocating a $30 to $50 carbon tax starting yesterday, and wants to set up an international tax system in case developments indicated that tax needs to be increased on very short notice.
Martin Weitzman is another, but he has recently concluded that if the worst case ctatastrophic scenarios of global warming have even a small chance of coming true, then there is very good reason for public policy to focus on avoiding that chance, even if it is small
(for more on this see Krugman’s blog July 29, 2008, 8:22 am Economics of catastrophe
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…..tastrophe/).
So the ‘average cost’ scenarios we see trotted out to minimize the potential problem miss the point.
OK thanks. If that clause in the deal, I am not so worried.
Excellent idea.
i’m with you but aside from a revolution we need ta work within the system. one thing at a time.
A bit more from the article.
Is this suggesting hedge funds will be banks?
OT, but has anyone seen more on this:
Came in an email from velvet revolution.
Yup.
FWIW, I’ve always thought George Soros best described the US since 1980; after the oil shocks of the 1970s, Americans wanted to be told lovely lies, and they wanted to believe that everything would be okay because, after all, we’re Americans and so the laws of nature didn’t really apply to us.
He spoke honestly, so no wonder the wingnuts continually send their screaming monkeys after George Soros and anyone else with the courage to be honest.
But the time for sweet illusions has now passed.
Don’t see any viable current options to the current two party system.
” Well the cost is damning, it is damning us to this recession, and it is going to damn us to a very poor recovery on the other side of it.”—
did you just say ‘God Damn America’??
IIRC Herbert Hoover worked within the system, look what it got him. /s
It sounds to me like hedge funds will be treated like banks for purposes of accessing a new Fed window, but I doubt there’s any bank regulatory mechanism alongside. Hedge funds are simply getting a new place to sell their trash that they’ll repackaged: the Federal Reserve.
All that was required for FDR to do the right thing, was for there to be a credible threat to the two party option… from the left.
that’s what i mean. now, if we were a banana republic there would be other options.
Seems to me, yes. Try pumping money into hedge funds and see if they can help out with tight credit to businesses, working people and students (you know, those useful little people who actually do something useful). Hedge funds will help fixe the mess of the broken banking system.
“Hey, useful little people who actually do useful things, nothing has worked so far so but don’t worry, we are sending… hedge funds… to help you out.”
Yikes!
But, to be honest, I do not understand it well enough to be sure. Anyone who can explain the techno-gizmo details, and put in context, I would appreciate it.
addendum to my #27
Hoover was arguably the most economically competent president the country had until FDR brought in his “brain trusts” from academia. Please look at what academia now provides (# 1 above) – The Chicago School of Economic Phrenology (and its acolytes).
Yes, that is exactly what I am wondering. What regulation or oversight is being proposed to prevent the hedge funds from doing what is most profitable to them, rather than what is needed to helpt the economy.
Seems to me that banks have very comptetently gamed their bailout for their own purposes. Or perhaps, understood the real opportunities presented by the bailout, that having little to do with the health of the real economy.
I heard a European economist on Youtube say that he was an “old fashioned” who believed that the financial system existed to serve the real economy. I guess that is old fashioned for the US.
don’t think i could disagree with you more.
women didn’t get universal suffrage in this country by working within the system – they couldn’t because they couldn’t even vote.
lynching and most jim crow era laws were not rolled back, the voting rights act was not implemented by people voting – for the most part, they couldn’t vote.
in neither case was the government overthrown – it was not a revolution. but it was activism. what you are suggesting is a false choice – we have other choices. worse, what i think you are advocating is the almost complete disempowerment of most of us. i reject that.
I think that is true. Much of the early New Deal was just pumping up and amplifying Hoover’s recovery programs. Hoover was also a RINO and softie. He was an engineer and famous for his disaster relief and recovery work.
Hoover… that damn socialist.
relax. i consider activism as working within the system.
Hoover followed the conventional wisdom of cutting government expenditures to match the reduction in revenue occasioned by the economic collapse. There was no thinking outside that economic box. The Russian revolution had removed Marx’s perspectives from any economic consideration, the consequence was the inability to create and use the economic tools necessary to restore economic viability. FDR hit the ground running IIRC with numerous programs to re-open the banks and restore confidence, put the unemployed back to work through government directed programs (TVA was a major example of this as was CCC and others), unemployment insurance was instituted, and the list goes on. Politically these programs were resisted by corporate congress through the courts to some effect. This lead to the attempted packing of the Supreme Court which failed but did bring the court into amore favorable standing. Wikipedia FDR has a good synopsis
Hoover was a competent and very successful businessman in his own right; and not hard bound by prevailing ideologies of the time.
Gah! those small aircraft crashes! there are so many. I had a list of suspicious deaths surrounding the Bushes, but lost it when hd crashed.
I was thinking of Hoover initiatives like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which is often assumed to be an FDR invention. And the Emergency Construction Act (Agency, Administration?) which was kind of federal public works fund for local and state projects.
Naked Capitalism’s take on the hedge-fund lending facility, or bailout or whatever it is:
Conclusion is: Not Good
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Fed Has Become a Prime Broker, Will Lend to Hedge Funds Under Consumer Loan Program
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com…..-lend.html
And also, this post, which I think is sadly all too true
—-
Saturday, December 20, 2008
So Now We Are Trying to Emulate Japan’s Lost Decade?
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com…..apans.html
Very well put.
From Wikipedia FYI.
Whereas Hoover (Wikipedia as well)
Can you link to your “facts”
The original facts were from my memory of Jonathon Hughes, American Economic History. But if you can Wikipedia me, I can Wikipedia you. See Herber Hoover, text under Great Depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover
and sorry, I got the name of one of them wrong: it was the Emergency Relief and Construction Act that funded public construction projects.
But I do not actually want to argue with you. I was making fun of conservative criticisms of FDR, since Hoover and FDR has much the same approaches, just that FDR was less bound by ideology, and more willing to experiment and expand when his initial exeriments proved indadequate. Hoover’s problem, like FDRs’ was that his fiscal stimulus policies were far too timid. FDR only expanded them out of desperation. And Hoover compounded the problem because he kept trying to balance the bugdge every year with big tax hikes, which was counterproductive and a hopeless quest.
So, in essence I think we agree.
Franken declaring victory in Minnesota Senate race- by 35-50 points.
oops
I mean 35-50 votes
addendum:
Further down the Wiki FDR is a description of the First and Second “New Deals” and FDR’s economic programs through his administration and WWII. Not badly presented, I would add, well worth the read.
Thank you, Sterling!
More on how the bonfires of failure were stoked:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12…..wanted=all
We probably do agree. It is always convenient to be conversing using the same information, I do find there is little common historical reality anymore, so it could look like argument. Do read the wiki on FDR though link, it is one of the better written ones (for the brevity) I’ve seen. Our comments were crossed as well. All the best…..
Stirling, I’d like to see an enumeration of ways in which Liberalism isn’t broken. It would be useful to see what, exactly, is working well and what we as a society could put some thought and tweaking into. I get frustrated with a government that puts little effort into following up legislation to see which unintended consequence is screwing it up the most and how that might be mitigated.
T-Bear, imho the main different between FDR’s brain trust and current brain trusts is that today academia has largely turned into credentialia, with a narrow focus replacing a broader education. They can’t see anything except what’s already in their (narrow) vision.
Speaking of costs, this is an excellent read:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/