aut-op-sy
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

Re: AUT: questions

--part1_162.1b18e66d.2b6c7a90_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Only on your last point, Nate (and I too am not an economist). I was talking
today to a friend and fellow activist on the testing stuff. Her husband is an
optometrist, and many of his patients came via a state-funded program which
paid for exams and then the glasses if needed. Now they pay for exam, but not
glasses -- so his patient list has quickly shrunk since no one wants an exam
that can't lead to getting glasses because you can't afford them and the
state won't pay. So his income has shrunken markedly.

Multiply this by how much? And on the other side, there is no evidence that
this will be a economy-inflating war, the last one of which was Vietnam.

Quantifying this, making projections, I don't know, but it would be
interesting to find out if any have done this. I saw a piece yesterday BTW
which said that William Nordhaus, a mainstream economist (I think maybe he
won a Nobel) estimated the real cost of the war could be $1.7 trillion, if
there is a need for the US to stay a while, and even that did not include all
likely costs (sorry, did not save piece, have no link to it). The indirect
costs such as Nate suggests would make this 'real' cost higher yet, and as
economists are wont, we could add opportunity costs to.

Monty

--part1_162.1b18e66d.2b6c7a90_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>Only on your last point, Nate (and I too am not an economist). I was talking today to a friend and fellow activist on the testing stuff. Her husband is an optometrist, and many of his patients came via a state-funded program which paid for exams and then the glasses if needed. Now they pay for exam, but not glasses -- so his patient list has quickly shrunk since no one wants an exam that can't lead to getting glasses because you can't afford them and the state won't pay. So his income has shrunken markedly.
<BR>
<BR>Multiply this by how much? And on the other side, there is no evidence that this will be a economy-inflating war, the last one of which was Vietnam.
<BR>
<BR>Quantifying this, making projections, I don't know, but it would be interesting to find out if any have done this. I saw a piece yesterday BTW which said that William Nordhaus, a mainstream economist (I think maybe he won a Nobel) estimated the real cost of the war could be $1.7 trillion, if there is a need for the US to stay a while, and even that did not include all likely costs (sorry, did not save piece, have no link to it). The indirect costs such as Nate suggests would make this 'real' cost higher yet, and as economists are wont, we could add opportunity costs to.
<BR>
<BR>Monty</FONT></HTML>

--part1_162.1b18e66d.2b6c7a90_boundary--


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]