Board-Ansicht
Mix-Ansicht- Über die möglichen finanziellen Folgen eines Iraq-Krieges - Popeye, 02.12.2002, 19:45
- Re: Über die möglichen finanziellen Folgen eines Iraq-Krieges - Miesespeter, 02.12.2002, 21:58
Über die möglichen finanziellen Folgen eines Iraq-Krieges
-->The economics of war
Calculating the
consequences
Nov 28th 2002 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition
Recent studies suggest that even a successful
military campaign in Iraq could carry a hefty price
tag
"IT SEEMS likely that Americans are underestimating
the economic commitments involved in a war with
Iraq," says William Nordhaus, an economics professor
at Yale University. Given all the imponderables
surrounding such a war, it is surprising how many
experts (like Mr Nordhaus) are trying to work out how
much it might cost. After all, it is not clear whether
Saddam Hussein's grip will crumble or if he might use
weapons of mass destruction. And it is anybody's
guess whether OPEC countries will replace any lost
Iraqi production-or might slash output in a general
Arab boycott.
The findings of the most ambitious effort to date,
undertaken by the Centre for Strategic and
International Studies, an American think-tank, were
unveiled this week in New York. Over the course of
the past few months, CSIS has tapped experts from
various fields to try and quantify the likely impacts of
war. First, the group's military and geopolitical gurus
defined four likely military outcomes: no war; a
benign war that lasts four to six weeks; a thornier
intermediate option that lasts up to three months;
and a"worse" case that drags on for as long as six
months. The group intentionally set aside still worse
possibilities, such as the use of nuclear weapons.
For each of these options, oil-market analysts
convened by CSIS speculated over the likely path of
oil prices. Their predictions were then fed into
macroeconomic models that took into account the
positive inputs, such as higher government spending,
as well as the negative ones, such as higher
inflation. They also factored in the role of market
psychology, recalling the experience of the 1970s
when oil shocks were accompanied by hoarding and
panicky behaviour.
The group reached some striking conclusions. For a
start, the no-war scenario is not necessarily the best
for the economy. That is because lingering
uncertainty about a possible war will continue to
depress markets and add a risk premium that boosts
oil prices and acts as a drag on growth. At the other
extreme, if things turn ugly, the team predicts that
oil prices could spike up to $80 a barrel and, more
damaging in economic terms, stay at around $40 for
many months thereafter (see chart).
In the end, though, [img][/img]
the group's
assessment of the
cumulative cost of
war to the end of
2004 is not overly
alarming: about $55
billion in the benign
scenario, and
around $120 billion
in the worse-case
scenario. (The
higher numbers in
the table below are
for a whole decade.)
The Congressional
Budget Office and a
committee of the
House of
Representatives
have also done
some sums, and
both came up with
estimates of $50
billion-60 billion for
a shortish war. The
Gulf war cost about
$80 billion in today's money, although much of that
was recouped by contributions from Saudi Arabia and
other allies, which are not likely to be repeated this
time. Even so, America can afford all the scenarios.
Some even suggest that the war could be an
economic boon. Most wars in America's history
have-thanks to massive government spending on
defence-tended to stimulate the economy. A notable
exception to that, however, was the Gulf war, which
was followed by recession. Even so, say some
extreme imperialists, if Saddam Hussein is ousted,
then America will be able to turn Iraq into its own
private pumping-station. Private or not, higher Iraqi
output would mean that oil prices would drop for a
while and America's economy (along with other
oil-consumers') would benefit.
Larry Lindsey, a top economic adviser to President
George Bush, made precisely this argument recently:
"When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could
add 3m-5m barrels of production to world
supply...successful prosecution of the war would be
good for the economy." The snag in this rosy plan is
the dilapidated state of Iraq's petroleum
infrastructure: oilmen say it would take 5-10 years for
Iraqi output to reach such unprecedented levels (even
assuming a post-Saddam Iraq would actually want to
flood the world market with oil). Mr Lindsey offered
an even more cheerful forecast: he estimated that
even a prolonged war would not cost more than $100
billion-200 billion, or about 1-2% of America's GDP.
What's the worry, then?
Hang on a minute, says Mr Nordhaus, who argues in
the latest New York Review of Books that none of the
recent analyses of war goes far enough. In general
terms, he agrees with their estimates for the direct
military costs for the various scenarios. But he insists
they underestimate the long-term costs to America
from an Iraqi war.
He points to the high costs likely to be incurred after
a military victory is secured: eg, in peacekeeping,
reconstruction and nation-building. Mr Bush has
openly committed America to rebuilding Iraq after
ousting Mr Hussein. By examining international
experience in post-war Kosovo, East Timor, Haiti and
other recent cases, Mr Nordhaus estimates that such
non-military costs could reach $600 billion if a
liberated Iraq turns out to be more like the West
Bank than Kosovo.
He also worries that an Arab boycott or some other
political factor could keep a significant share of OPEC
oil off the market for many months. And that, of
course, would mean higher oil prices, higher inflation,
lost economic output, and so on. All told, Mr
Nordhaus thinks that even an Iraqi invasion that
went well would probably cost about $120 billion in
today's money over the next decade-and one that
went horribly wrong could end up costing a whopping
$1.6 trillion.
The estimators differ in the purpose, methodology
and sophistication of their analysis. But, taken
together, recent prognoses point to one conclusion:
even a short war will prove fairly costly, while a
messy one could deal the economy a severe blow. Mr
Bush has often stressed the possible price-in terms
of national security-of not going to war against
Saddam Hussein. These studies suggest that he
should start preparing Americans for the economic
costs of going to war as well.
Quelle: Economist
Thread gesperrtgesamter Thread:
