Monday, May 29, 2006

Bush’s Memorial Day War Cry a Classic “Sunk Cost” Argument

Dear President Bush,

You wish to run the government like a business but your position on the War in Iraq violates one basic financial tenet, in conducting a cost benefit analysis one must ignore the past investment associated with that initiative. While those previous costs might be significant, the focus is on future investment and the returns to the enterprise.

As President you not only ignore the past cost rule, you use it as the main reason to keep going on your prime directive, the war in Iraq. By doing so, the Commander in Chief does not have to produce projected future investments and their associated benefits.

Yes, things are beginning to make sense. As you were never the good analyzer in the past, why would you suddenly change and become a good projector of the future? Having written numerous times for the projected impact of your health care strategies, I have yet to receive a reply. My guess is you don’t have them, just as you don’t have it for Iraq.

What would a corporate board do to a CEO who asked for billions of dollars with no projections all because of the significant costs and sacrifices made to date? They would be shown the door.

What should a country do to a President who justifies the future loss of life by the total to date, by the memory of the fallen?

No comments: