[lbo-talk] contingent valuation and undercounting the cost of the surge

[Robert Naiman]

I'm all for using that number against them, but I want to use other
numbers against them as well...that would surely be an undercount of
the true cost, unless we believe that soldiers would voluntarily
redeploy for an additional 3 months, and no coercive extension would
be necessary, were they paid the difference between their military pay
and their outside opportunity. Which seems rather unlikely.

Bob


> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:38:44 -0400
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] contingent valuation and undercounting the cost of the surge
>
> On Apr 14, 2007, at 8:06 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>
> > We could look at the gap between the combat pay and what these
> > soldiers would be earning if they remained in the U.S. Clearly not the
> > right number, but a number worth knowing.
>
> This is the number bourgeois economists would use, no? Why not use it
> against them?
>
> Doug