On 5/30/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The main criticism of the Bilmes & Stiglitz's paper is that they calculate the opportunity cost of war against a peaceful alternative, when they should have thought of "containment" or some such as the true alternative. The Chicago people cannot think beyond U.S. imperialism.
Given the balance of political power, that seems to be the only choice (war vs. containment or whatever). The point is to change the balance of power. But economists -- and not just Chicago-types -- typically take the balance of political power for granted and end up being apologists for those in power. BTW, containment seems to be a pretty inexpensive operation compared to the actual war. It's hard to imagine that it changes the story very much. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
