Iraq Affordable?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17665432/
This article "Is the Iraq war a relative bargain?" by the Associated Press is an interesting read. It points out some things that I didn't know about the war in Iraq before.

The first is that we have been paying for Iraq entirely with supplements to the budget. In the 4 years we have been at war, there has only been a section for the war in the actual budget for this coming year of 2008. This and the fact that the president hasn't really increased taxes since the start of the war means that we're paying for the whole thing on credit.

The second is that the U.S. economy has strengthened exponentially since the last time we were in a war that lasted a significant amount of time. That little tidbit means that even though we are still paying the same relative price to wage war that we have in the past, it is taking up much less of our economy's total output.

Because of this strengthened economy and odd methods of paying for the war, the associated press suggests that the war is actually very "affordable" for the country.

This is all well and good, but when the majority of the country doesn't believe we are over there for the right reasons or doesn't believe we should have been over there in the first place it becomes much more difficult to convince them that we can afford to be in Iraq. This attitude also makes it much, much more difficult to write off the large number of soldiers we have lost overseas already in this war. At the end of the article the AP cites what the cost would have been if we had kept doing what we were doing instead of starting a war with Iraq. It would have, in fact, cost a mere $50-$700billion. That may seem like a lot, but when just the medical care and disability costs payed to veterans of the war is already projected at $700billion, one has to question...why would you even think of calling this war affordable?

Mexico and Price Discrimination

so, last week thursday through tuesday I was in Mexico. during my stay there i happened to visit a flea market in Cancun. after walking away from the flea market i was reminded of how much i would have to catch up when i got home (since it was monday) and thought 'hey, i could use that market for econ' so here we go.

the flea market really amazed me as to how much of an excellent example it was of price discrimination. at this flea market, like many in mexico, it was expected that one would bargain for items. this means that every person who walks into the market has the chance to get a different price. although each vendor prices the item the same for everyone when they walk in it is up to the consumer as to how much they really pay.

for example, when i walked into a jewelry store with my new stepdad ron, he was interested in buying a pendant for my mom. the original price that the vendor said he would sell it for was $367 american. in less than half an hour ron had talked the vendor down to a mere $70, and he ended up throwing in a neclace chain to go with it for free.

this means one of two things, either the pendant really was worth very little to begin with, or the vendor knew ron would not budge, yet still wanted to get at least some money. this would indicate the mentality that a little money now is better than waiting and possibly not ever selling the merchandise. this is an interesting theory to me, being as vendors in the US have a set price, and a view that suggests that if one person doesn't want it at that price, someone else will. does anyone have any idea as to why there would be this fundamental difference in mind set?