PDA

View Full Version : impact of terrorism on world economy



everything
18 Jan 08,, 00:48
What are the impact of terrorism on the world's economy?

Trooth
18 Jan 08,, 16:38
I would say generally positive.

Obviously increased defence spending creates jobs in a variety of industries as well as increased funding for R&D.

In addition, much like natural disasters, things that are destroyed are, generally, replaced, which shows up as positive in terms of GDP.

Increased security spending creates a boom in that sector of industry and the increased costs are generally transferrable to the consumer and accounted as increased fixed overheards that are shared by all within an industry. In other words no one company loses out from the increase cost - much like a law change affects every company the law pertains to.

There are negative effects, people lose life, property and business that sometimes is not recovered, but that is localised. People don't like flying - for a while. People avoid certain tourist destinations - for a while. But that recovers and in the meantime other areas benefit from "diversion tourism". People don't stop going on holiday, they just go somewhere different.

We have had international terrorism on a large scale for what, 40 years now? In that time i don't think it has had a negative impact on world economic growth.

aaronyeo
29 Jan 08,, 05:10
The immediate impacts of terrorist acts including loss of life, destruction of property and depression of short term economic activity are compounded by the costs associated with the continuing threat of terrorism.

Counter-terrorism measures should be taken as it is an investment against future attacks.

cuba
29 Jan 08,, 08:21
You must also take into account that terrorists are starting to target vital economic infrastructure. The U.S was hoping to pay for the War in Iraq using revenue generated by oil. In spite of it's efforts in increasing security in these areas, suicide attacks are still prevelant.

Recently, a suicide bomber blew up part of a pipeline somewhere in Iraq (sorry i can't recall it but it happened). Incidents like these have resulted in reduced investment in oil infrastructure in iraq which of course reduces oil extraction and of course revenue generated by its exportation.

As you can see, the impacts on the world economy can be bad depending on the circumstances.

jaslinepoh
29 Jan 08,, 10:49
Terrorism is a real threat to all nations in the world.
The motivation to study the impact of terrorism in an open world economy is the following. It has been documented that the direct impact of terrorist attacks on productive capital is relatively modest.

Even if terrorism is a global threat, international investment will
respond to differences in the expected intensity of terrorism across countries.

Terrorism can bring an economy to its knees because of fear. Businesses may be afraid to operate as normal because of fear that another attack will happen. Increased costs in security can cause companies to fall on economic hard time ultimately decreasing the value of their stocks and hurting shareholders.

The loss of human life is undoubtedly the tragic side of terrorism. The effects of the deaths of loved ones are tremendous. The business world does not go unaffected by these human losses; the loss in labor force and other key players in a company can cause significant negative effects.

roystonwee
29 Jan 08,, 12:23
The targeting of mass public transportation such as buses, planes, and trains for terrorist attacks has made many travelers leery of straying too far from home. Events such as subway bombings and plane hijackings serve to hurt the travel industry as well as the hotel industry, especially in Middle Eastern countries. Both India and Nepal experienced a massive drop in tourism after the September 11th attacks on America in 2001. The reason for this drop in tourism was because of their close proximity to Afghanistan and the subsequent war that followed the September 11th attacks.

Prior to the September 11th attacks that brought terrorism to the forefront of the world’s political scene, tourism was the world’s largest industry. Nearly 10 percent of all the jobs around the world were related to tourism and travel prior to the attacks. After the attacks of 9/11 the public’s reluctance to travel resulted in thousands of employees in the travel and tourism industry to lose their jobs. Since this initial market downturn, fears have cooled and the tourism industry has begun to slowly recover, but this example is an excellent reminder of how fine a line the tourism industry is walking.

Any country that depends heavily on tourism for economical stability is playing with fire. The threat of a terrorist flare up can cause the loss of millions of dollars in revenue and cripple an economy. This realization has prompted many of the leaders of tourism dependent countries to begin efforts to promote other industry in their respective regions in order to safeguard their local economies should terrorism temporarily derail the tourism industry as it did after the September 11th attacks.

TopHatter
30 Jan 08,, 01:02
I would say generally positive.

That's an...interesting point of view, to say the least.

I would also say that there are far more practical ways to achieve the positives you've mentioned without attendent death and destruction and far better things to spend billions of dollars on than more military hardware.

I'm going to go with generally negative, most notably in the short-term, the loss of life and devastating economic impact that high-profile terrorist attacks can cause.

But the long-term is more subtle. Terrorism feeds the hatred of the terrorist and their sympathizers and creates hate on the part of the terrorized.

An on-going cycle of hatred and violence. Hardly positive wouldnt you say?

TopHatter
30 Jan 08,, 01:03
By the way...there wouldn't happen to be any Singaporeans in this thread, are there? :confused:

Shek
30 Jan 08,, 03:30
I would say generally positive.

Obviously increased defence spending creates jobs in a variety of industries as well as increased funding for R&D.

In addition, much like natural disasters, things that are destroyed are, generally, replaced, which shows up as positive in terms of GDP.

Increased security spending creates a boom in that sector of industry and the increased costs are generally transferrable to the consumer and accounted as increased fixed overheards that are shared by all within an industry. In other words no one company loses out from the increase cost - much like a law change affects every company the law pertains to.

There are negative effects, people lose life, property and business that sometimes is not recovered, but that is localised. People don't like flying - for a while. People avoid certain tourist destinations - for a while. But that recovers and in the meantime other areas benefit from "diversion tourism". People don't stop going on holiday, they just go somewhere different.

We have had international terrorism on a large scale for what, 40 years now? In that time i don't think it has had a negative impact on world economic growth.

Trooth,
You're describing the broken window fallacy. Terrorism does have a negative impact. While growth rates in the developed world have been positive, the rates are slower than they might have been absent terrorism. I suspect that the impact is statistically small, but it is negative nonetheless. The following column illustrates the broken window fallacy.


Good and Bad Economics by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4033)

Here are a couple of newspaper headlines following Florida's bout with hurricane disasters: "Storms create lucrative times," St. Petersburg Times (Sept. 30, 2004), and "Economic growth from hurricanes could outweigh costs," USA Today (Sept. 27, 2004). The writers, Joni James and Barbara Hagenbaugh, might have been listening to economists like Steve Cochrane, director of regional economics at Economy.com, a consulting firm in West Chester, Pa., who told USA Today, "It's a perverse thing ... there's real pain, but from an economic point of view, it is a plus."

Why are Florida's hurricanes a "plus"? It's simple. According to St. Petersburg Times reporter Joni James, "Construction creates thousands of jobs, insurance provides for billions in consumer purchases, and new facilities built to higher standards might help offset future storm-related losses."

This kind of reasoning, often put forth by poorly trained economists, doesn't even pass a simple smell test. Think about it this way. Using Cochrane's statement, if "from an economic point of view, it (hurricanes) is a plus," would the country have been even better off if the entire East Coast shared Florida's damage and destruction? If it would have been a plus for the East Coast, what about hurricane destruction for the entire nation east of the Mississippi? Almost anyone with a speck of brains would recognize that equating economic growth with destruction is lunacy.

French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) wrote a pamphlet "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen," in which he says, "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." In the case of Florida's hurricane disaster, what is seen is the employment associated with rebuilding. What is unseen is what Floridians would have spent the money on and the benefits therefrom had there not been hurricane destruction.

Bastiat wrote a parable about this that has become known as the "Broken Window Fallacy." A shopkeeper's window is broken by a vandal. A crowd forms, sympathizing with the man, but pretty soon, the people start to suggest the boy wasn't guilty of vandalism; instead, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. After all, fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler, and so forth.

Those are the seen effects of the broken window. What's unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had the vandal not broken his window. He might have employed the tailor by purchasing a suit. The broken window produced at least two unseen effects. First, it shifted unemployment from the glazier, who now has a job, to the tailor, who doesn't. Second, it reduced the shopkeeper's wealth. Explicitly, had it not been for the vandalism, the shopkeeper would have had a window and a suit; now, he has just a window.

The broken-window fallacy was seen in a column written by Princeton University professor Paul Krugman after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, "After the Horror" New York Times (Sept. 14, 2001). He wrote, "Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could do some economic good." He went on to point out how rebuilding the destruction would stimulate the economy through business investment and job creation. Again, do the smell test. If Krugman is right, wouldn't the terrorists have done us a bigger economic favor if they had destroyed buildings in other cities?

Tan
30 Jan 08,, 05:43
The targeting of mass public transportation such as buses, planes, and trains for terrorist attacks has made many travelers leery of straying too far from home. Events such as subway bombings and plane hijackings serve to hurt the travel industry as well as the hotel industry, especially in Middle Eastern countries. Both India and Nepal experienced a massive drop in tourism after the September 11th attacks on America in 2001. The reason for this drop in tourism was because of their close proximity to Afghanistan and the subsequent war that followed the September 11th attacks.

Prior to the September 11th attacks that brought terrorism to the forefront of the world’s political scene, tourism was the world’s largest industry. Nearly 10 percent of all the jobs around the world were related to tourism and travel prior to the attacks. After the attacks of 9/11 the public’s reluctance to travel resulted in thousands of employees in the travel and tourism industry to lose their jobs. Since this initial market downturn, fears have cooled and the tourism industry has begun to slowly recover, but this example is an excellent reminder of how fine a line the tourism industry is walking.

Any country that depends heavily on tourism for economical stability is playing with fire. The threat of a terrorist flare up can cause the loss of millions of dollars in revenue and cripple an economy. This realization has prompted many of the leaders of tourism dependent countries to begin efforts to promote other industry in their respective regions in order to safeguard their local economies should terrorism temporarily derail the tourism industry as it did after the September 11th attacks.

yea.. i agreed :biggrin:

Tan
30 Jan 08,, 05:55
contribute some information found on the net.

The moment at which terrorists succeed at using airplanes to inspire fear in air travelers they have accomplished their aim. Since 9/11, the airline industry has been wracked with increasing economic problems, from security to increased ticket prices, to a drop in air travelers, along with a host of other fall-out factors. And, now, the increasing cost of oil is forcing once solid industry giants to lose their financial footing

Airlines have had to invest in expensive baggage and passenger scanning equipment, as well as hire many extra security personnel to help regain the public’s trust that air travel is safe. While such responses are necessary to secure the safety of passengers and ensure that further attacks are prevented, the resulting economic losses are large. This is why terrorist attacks that use airplanes have such a profound effect on society. Individuals lose their lives, fears are heightened, and companies lose money. Overall, terror in the air is a horrifying and effective way for terrorists to make their point and results in both economic and human loss that can permanently affect world markets.

Ironduke
30 Jan 08,, 09:13
Obviously increased defence spending creates jobs in a variety of industries as well as increased funding for R&D.

In addition, much like natural disasters, things that are destroyed are, generally, replaced, which shows up as positive in terms of GDP.
I disagree. Terrorism creates an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty and doesn't destroy enough or the right kind of stuff that natural disasters and wars do. For example, the German bombing of London cleared out a vast area of decrepit buildings, as did the Great Fire of 1666. Rome burned and was rebuilt in brick.

Trooth
30 Jan 08,, 13:01
Trooth,
You're describing the broken window fallacy. Terrorism does have a negative impact. While growth rates in the developed world have been positive, the rates are slower than they might have been absent terrorism. I suspect that the impact is statistically small, but it is negative nonetheless. The following column illustrates the broken window fallacy.

But that article is facile in places. When the gunmen opened fire around the pyramids in 1996, it caused a downturn for Egypt. But people still went on holiday somewhere amd those locations benefited from the increased tourism.

The original question was not "are there any economic impacts of Terrorism" it was "What are the impact of terrorism on the world's economy?".

Even in the airline industry we have seen growth from airlines from muslim countries because they have picked up some passenger miles as they may be less of a target than non-muslim carriers.

For terrorism to have a depressing effect on the world's economy there would have to be a sustained attack on the main sources of economic flow which we haven't seen. We have seen a few blips that would have impacted local tourism and depressed some of the local economies. But we have also seen a truly massive influx of money into security, defence, arms, "business continuity", news reporting and so on. All of which is new development, new build, new purchases.

Also the "broken window fallacy" pre-supposes that people have not already bought replacement glass. However "business continuity" plans happen at all level of businesses where they have already spent huge amounts of money on just such a scenario. In fact money that would be "wasted" if it was never used. But money that when spent was positive on GDP figures.

1 Observer
30 Jan 08,, 16:43
"Yes, and no"... at least that’s what I think I hear.
A sense in insecurity, in my understanding, does not actually provide for negative influence as it is already one of the 2 primary motivations to market trade. (fear and greed)
I was impressed by the level of disruption, related to 9-11's aftermath.... 2 buildings ... we're not talking about a whole city ... 2 buildings, turned the world market on its ear.
I wonder, how much impact would the loss of the crude on one tanker have? Would it change fuel prices? Just how much loss of oil would it take to upset the cart? What would that shift in fuel prices do? How much can the western world absorb?
It occurs to me, that too much consideration goes to public opinion. (Related to military action)
Just about anyone that would be on this site can appreciate the FACT, that they (much of the Moslem world, and those that are not, surely sympathize.) are at war with us, and we (because of our pathetic un informed public and media) operating under intolerable constraints. I do not presume to have answers … (plenty of questions …. plenty) … I do feel safe making the observation that:”Any effective course of action (possessing even the remotest chance of success) will be much more unpleasant than we have been thus far.”
Adhering to “laws of war” that our esteemed foe are unfettered by, is NOT how one destroys ones enemies will to fight!

Shek
30 Jan 08,, 18:08
But that article is facile in places. When the gunmen opened fire around the pyramids in 1996, it caused a downturn for Egypt. But people still went on holiday somewhere amd those locations benefited from the increased tourism.

The original question was not "are there any economic impacts of Terrorism" it was "What are the impact of terrorism on the world's economy?".

Even in the airline industry we have seen growth from airlines from muslim countries because they have picked up some passenger miles as they may be less of a target than non-muslim carriers.

For terrorism to have a depressing effect on the world's economy there would have to be a sustained attack on the main sources of economic flow which we haven't seen. We have seen a few blips that would have impacted local tourism and depressed some of the local economies. But we have also seen a truly massive influx of money into security, defence, arms, "business continuity", news reporting and so on. All of which is new development, new build, new purchases.

Also the "broken window fallacy" pre-supposes that people have not already bought replacement glass. However "business continuity" plans happen at all level of businesses where they have already spent huge amounts of money on just such a scenario. In fact money that would be "wasted" if it was never used. But money that when spent was positive on GDP figures.

The expenditures you are talking about are just happening in different forms. Is creating the TSA in the United States a positive impact on the economy? Taxes must increase at some point to pay for this increased government expenditure, which will crowd out investment and growth.

What you are describing is the distributional effects and not the aggregate effects. In the aggregate, terrorism hasn't increased growth or grown the pie. Instead, it has changed how big are the slices that different folks get.

If you switch the question to what is the impact terrorism has had on national/local economies, then you can drop the redistributional effects into gain or lose buckets.

tankie
02 Feb 08,, 06:45
For example, the German bombing of London cleared out a vast area of decrepit buildings

And didnt we thank them for that , with the help of the allies of course .

cuba
03 Feb 08,, 12:17
How did we do that? :confused:

1 Observer
03 Feb 08,, 17:32
How did we do that? :confused:

Air campaign ... we helped "make way" to invigorate their economy.

1 Observer
03 Feb 08,, 18:13
The expenditures you are talking about are just happening in different forms. Is creating the TSA in the United States a positive impact on the economy? Taxes must increase at some point to pay for this increased government expenditure, which will crowd out investment and growth.

What you are describing is the distributional effects and not the aggregate effects. In the aggregate, terrorism hasn't increased growth or grown the pie. Instead, it has changed how big are the slices that different folks get.

If you switch the question to what is the impact terrorism has had on national/local economies, then you can drop the redistributional effects into gain or lose buckets.

Also seemingly intuitive comments made byTan ... Good points, however.
I find it difficult to imagine that the "redistribution" of the cost of America's hightened security doesn't have a negative effect.
If that money were not being used ... it would have gone elsewhere ...
Can we agree upon that? That being concurred upon, I would point out that
where ever that else may have been, I'm sure they wouldn't mind having that moneyin their bucket. Also, could the first bucket have been more beneficial to the economy?
In that sense, the sheer magnitude of this open ended spending is disturbing. We are waging a war on a word ... No headway can be made against a word ... for whatever the reason, we seem unwilling to name names. Furthermore, We seem unwilling to recognize that a "major segment of persons involved in another Religion" are actively ( sentimentally, or ideologically) supporting a real live Holy War against all JudeoChristiandom.
Doesn't matter if you , I or your neighbor, imagine ourselves christian. THEY see us in this light.
To me, it is anallogous to our being in a boxing match ... we refuse to recognize that our oponent has commenced without us, and we are still expending our energy doing callisthenics, whilst being pummelled about the ears! Our economy is being attritted, (to a debatable extent) and we are failing to make inroads upon this opponents ability to threaten us. The negative impact is, we aren't curing the ill, but we jolly well are spending!

Parihaka
03 Feb 08,, 18:40
contribute some information found on the net.

The moment at which terrorists succeed at using airplanes to inspire fear in air travelers they have accomplished their aim. Since 9/11, the airline industry has been wracked with increasing economic problems, from security to increased ticket prices, to a drop in air travelers, along with a host of other fall-out factors. And, now, the increasing cost of oil is forcing once solid industry giants to lose their financial footing

Airlines have had to invest in expensive baggage and passenger scanning equipment, as well as hire many extra security personnel to help regain the public’s trust that air travel is safe. While such responses are necessary to secure the safety of passengers and ensure that further attacks are prevented, the resulting economic losses are large. This is why terrorist attacks that use airplanes have such a profound effect on society. Individuals lose their lives, fears are heightened, and companies lose money. Overall, terror in the air is a horrifying and effective way for terrorists to make their point and results in both economic and human loss that can permanently affect world markets.
Doesn't seem to have worked out that way


Airline Travel Since 9/11 (http://www.bts.gov/publications/issue_briefs/number_13/html/entire.html)
Airline capacity (expressed in available seats) has increased more slowly than the increase in airline passenger travel.
Low-cost carriers represent a growing portion of the domestic aviation market. This change has been accompanied by decreasing fares.
Network carriers have responded by shifting capacity to international markets and by reducing employment to cut costs


Today’s airline industry presents a different picture than it did prior to the events of September 11, 2001 (9/11), with more passengers flying low-cost carriers, fewer empty seats, and a smaller workforce.

Airline passenger travel and capacity (measured in terms of available seats) fell drastically after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, when our national air space was temporarily closed. The numbers of airline passenger and seats remained low in subsequent months, but have recovered in the following years. Available seats have increased more slowly than air passenger travel, and have only recently reached the pre-9/11 peaks; in contrast, air passenger travel reached its pre-9/11 peak in July 2004 and has continued to grow. Thus the aviation industry has accommodated passenger growth with few additional seats, which means fuller planes.

At the same time that the industry was facing this large-scale drop and subsequent recovery in the number of passengers, there were shifts in the size of different segments of the industry. In particular, the low-cost carriers grew significantly and air fares decreased through this period.

Network carriers responded to the pressures on the domestic market by reducing available seats and shifting some capacity to the international market. They also dramatically cut employment in order to reduce costs.

Passengers Return
In the August preceding 9/11, the airline industry experienced what was then a record high in the number of airline passengers for a given month when 65.4 million travelers took to the air. After 9/11, that number trailed off dramatically, and it took nearly 3 years, until July 2004, for the industry to match and finally surpass the pre 9/11 levels. But the number of available seats—an industry measure of capacity— in July 2004 was just 98.3 % of its August 2001 peak. By July 2005, the number of airline passengers had reached 71 million.

Fewer Empty Seats
In the comeback from post 9/11 lows, capacity has risen more slowly than growth in passenger numbers. Available seats hit a peak of 90.6 million in August 2001. But after 9/11, capacity dropped dramatically as airlines grounded planes and reduced flights to match falling demand. Only 67.5 million seats were available in September 2001. In July 2005, the number of available seats exceeded the pre 9/11 level for the first time at 91.1 million— an increase of about 0.6 percent compared with an increase of about 9.7 percent in passengers over the pre 9/11 high.

Because the airlines have accommodated the surge in passengers with only a minimal increase in the number of seats, aircraft are flying with fewer empty seats.

Fewer Employees
Current employment levels for network and low-cost carriers1 are 28% below July 2001 levels as many airlines strive to reduce costs. Employment for network and lowcost carriers stood at 534,767 in July 2001.2 But 4 years later, in July 2005, employment had fallen 28 percent to 383,859. This drop was driven by a decline in employment by the network carriers compared to increased hiring by low-cost carriers. Network carrier employment fell by 34 percent, from 465,198 in July 2001 to 308,714 in July 2005. During this same time period, low-cost carrier employment increased by 8 percent—from 69,569 to 75,145.

Market Changes
One response U.S. network carriers made to the post 9/11 market conditions was to shift capacity from domestic to international markets. International service represented 12.0% of seats on network carriers in May 2001, increasing to 15.2 % in May 2005.3 The shift of available seats toward the international market occurred as the network airlines were reacting to the rising dominance of low-cost carriers in the domestic marketplace. The low-cost carriers vigorously added capacity while the network airlines reduced domestic flight operations to reduce costs. Annual available seats on low-cost carriers increased by 24%4, from 182 million in 2000 to 226 million, in 2004, and passengers increased by 27%, from 124 million to 158 million, during the same period.

At the same time there have been changes in the domestic aviation pricing structure reflecting the growing impact of low-cost carriers and other factors. Widely available, relatively inexpensive air fares have contributed to the increase in passenger travel. For example, the Air Travel Price Index (ATPI), which tracks changes in prices paid for airline tickets, showed in the first quarter of 2005 the lowest fare index of any January-to-March period since 1999.

For More Information:
Ken Notis
Economist
U.S. Department of Transportation
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
400 7th Street SW, Room 4125
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-3576 Fax: 202-493-0568
Ken.Notis@dot.gov

1 Network and low-cost carriers do not include regional carriers. Network carriers are the traditional hub-and-spoke carriers.

2 Employment at network carriers and low-cost carriers, based on data from RITA-BTS, OAI, monthly P-1(a) Form 41. Data are incomplete for regional and other carriers in 2001 and 2002. Regional and other carrier data for years when regional and other carrier data are complete is shown in the accompanying table for July 2003 through July 2005.

3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T100.SEGMENT data, Nov. 21, 2005.

tankie
04 Feb 08,, 05:42
How did we do that? :confused:

Well , if you fill in your profile and let people see where you are from , then maybe the WE you refer to will become clear as to wether your country were allies or not . Simple huh ? But the answer has been give to you by 1 Observer .;)

Kansas Bear
04 Feb 08,, 06:18
How did we do that? :confused:

'We' let Picasso paint Guernica AFTER the Germans bombed it.....:rolleyes:

Shek
04 Feb 08,, 14:32
Good points, however.
I find it difficult to imagine that the "redistribution" of the cost of America's hightened security doesn't have a negative effect.
If that money were not being used ... it would have gone elsewhere ...
Can we agree upon that? That being concurred upon, I would point out that
where ever that else may have been, I'm sure they wouldn't mind having that moneyin their bucket. Also, could the first bucket have been more beneficial to the economy?

Read the posts prior to the one quoted. This is already answered and you are wasting bandwidth.


In that sense, the sheer magnitude of this open ended spending is disturbing. We are waging a war on a word ... No headway can be made against a word ... for whatever the reason, we seem unwilling to name names.

Tell that the AQ leadership that has gotten dead. I'm sure they'd disagree with the headway. A military response is not the end all, be all, but it is absolutely part of the equation.

Also, the sheer magnitude is really not that much. US GWOT expenditures are approximately 1% of GDP. Put another way, for someone that makes $50,000, it's like spending $500 on something.


Furthermore, We seem unwilling to recognize that a "major segment of persons involved in another Religion" are actively ( sentimentally, or ideologically) supporting a real live Holy War against all JudeoChristiandom.

Maybe because your numbers are wrong. Maybe because you group munafiquun with Muslims, which is the fundamental mistake.


Doesn't matter if you , I or your neighbor, imagine ourselves christian. THEY see us in this light.

Define THEY.


To me, it is anallogous to our being in a boxing match ... we refuse to recognize that our oponent has commenced without us, and we are still expending our energy doing callisthenics, whilst being pummelled about the ears! Our economy is being attritted, (to a debatable extent) and we are failing to make inroads upon this opponents ability to threaten us. The negative impact is, we aren't curing the ill, but we jolly well are spending!

As I stated before, we're not spending that much in the US. The US economy is not being attrited (I can't speak to the UK economy) in any largely noticeable way. We've been at lower than the natural rate of unemployment for numerous quarters and have just seen it increase to natural levels (for reasons other than terrorism). We've had strong growth (the longest post-WWII expansion in US history if my memory serves me correct).

1 Observer
04 Feb 08,, 15:20
Very well ... Let us for the sake of discussion, say "I stand corrected" ........... I relent, I concede the point and the floor is yours.
Please continue to enlighten us.

Ps "They" advance an insurgency.”

Shek
04 Feb 08,, 16:12
Very well ... Let us for the sake of discussion, say "I stand corrected" ........... I relent, I concede the point and the floor is yours.
Please continue to enlighten us.

Ps "They" advance an insurgency.”

Define THEY.

1 Observer
04 Feb 08,, 17:02
And thus far, you have been. I note that you are more intimately informed upon particulars in the factional differences of our esteemed foe.


Define THEY.

To limit the scope of mistaken identities, we should define “They”,
as those who "advance an insurgency” In this case the one underway throughout the middle east... but also, those: who in action, or omission of same, find themselves sympathetic to said cause, and in that course, turn a blind eye towards actions they find embarrassing or distasteful, and choose not to correct them.

Honestly "it", (the PC lot) has never fallen to me. (to bear) But I do not shirk the burden of defining my view. Thank you for brining me to task. I would hate to have mislead you.

Shek
04 Feb 08,, 19:10
And thus far, you have been. I note that you are more intimately informed upon particulars in the factional differences of our esteemed foe.

To limit the scope of mistaken identities, we should define “They”,
as those who "advance an insurgency” In this case the one underway throughout the middle east... but also, those: who in action, or omission of same, find themselves sympathetic to said cause, and in that course, turn a blind eye towards actions they find embarrassing or distasteful, and choose not to correct them.

Honestly "it", (the PC lot) has never fallen to me. (to bear) But I do not shirk the burden of defining my view. Thank you for brining me to task. I would hate to have mislead you.

If you don't mind, I'd like to play the who's in and who's not game with just a few hypotheticals so that I understand your definition.

A Syrian who opposes violence in the name of Islam, but does nothing because the secret state police will kill him/her?

An Indonesian subsistence farmer with no internet access and little to no access to news, who is shown propaganda pictures of supposed American/British atrocities by Islamic extremists and then expresses happiness with 9/11 and 7/7?

An Iraqi that submits to AQI in his village because AQI murdered his parents in front of him?

A Palestinian who is sympathetic to AQ's actions and a militant Islamic message thanks to aid from Hamas that puts food on his family's table, but rejects Zawahiri's calls to join AQ?

1 Observer
04 Feb 08,, 22:24
Are all living under tyrannous rule … If they, the peace loving Majority, said enough, banded together imagine this sort of a solution … the one which worked here… what they decided to do was …
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…

Shek
05 Feb 08,, 01:05
Are all living under tyrannous rule … If they, the peace loving Majority, said enough, banded together imagine this sort of a solution … the one which worked here… what they decided to do was …

It sounds all so simple. Of course, the colonists didn't face modern armor or intensive secret police organizations. They had parity on the weapons front, had relatively the same mobility, and a homefield advantage.

So, are you going to answer the question, or are you going to troll yet again with some tangent? THEY or not?

TopHatter
05 Feb 08,, 02:19
So, are you going to answer the question, or are you going to troll yet again with some tangent? THEY or not?

Uh oh :))

1 Observer
05 Feb 08,, 03:41
American colonist faced the most advanced, fearsom, modern weapon armed, well disciplined, force, which the world had yet seen. They risked all. With all they had. And triumphed.
If you're pet, violence hating, "good Muslims", the 99.9% majority, do nothing, they fail to contribute to the solution. I have no patience for "what if, in a perfect word." ... It don't exist.
I have another opinion on these folks posture, one far less flattering, It's quite possible ... they claim one thing, while Philosophically supporting another ... silent approval ... If they do not contribute to the solution, their plight is of far less consequence to same.
You say I should be everything short of ashamed of myself. I am not. You say, they ... the Majority ... feel such and so, You may speak truth. However, the burden of proof lies with you. Prove it to answer your question .... "They" advance an insurgency. ... we are what we do ... wether you choose to believe you will be judged by God, or Allah, that is the critereon upon which you shall be judged. In this life or the next. (a personal matter between you and HE)

....please, refrain in the future, from referral to America's
Declaration of Independence
as a tangent, or I assure you, not only I, may be found inconsolable.

I've never ever, been the solutions guy, only ever, the tool by which policy was applied. It had always been beyond the scope of my duties to indentify the foe. (all enemy, foreign or domestic) Doesn't change the job mate.

Officer of Engineers
05 Feb 08,, 05:32
For an observer, your observations are ill conceived and poorly worded. I know I would have a hell of a time understanding your eval and I certainly would not make any command decision based on your say so ... simply because I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

troung
05 Feb 08,, 06:57
Are all living under tyrannous rule … If they, the peace loving Majority, said enough, banded together imagine this sort of a solution … the one which worked here… what they decided to do was …


. I have no patience for "what if, in a perfect word." ... It don't exist.

...

Mobbme
05 Feb 08,, 17:59
For an observer, your observations are ill conceived and poorly worded. I know I would have a hell of a time understanding your eval and I certainly would not make any command decision based on your say so ... simply because I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.


I thought it was only me. I honestly didn't understand any of his posts, even though they were in plain english. I was beginning to think I had to start reading novels again to enhance my vocab, or pull out a dictionary/thes to disect his posts. Thank god it was him.

Shek
16 May 08,, 02:58
Bump.

Blue
16 May 08,, 04:18
After scanning over this I think we should specify the terrorists.

1.Islamic Extremists

2.Eco-terrorists(Al Gore)

3.OPEC

IMO the two latter are affecting the economy the most currently. Al queda struck a hard blow on 911 but seems to have lost its capacity to mount domestic operations as of late.(too bad for them bastards!)

zraver
17 May 08,, 19:07
After scanning over this I think we should specify the terrorists.

1.Islamic Extremists

2.Eco-terrorists(Al Gore)

3.OPEC

IMO the two latter are affecting the economy the most currently. Al queda struck a hard blow on 911 but seems to have lost its capacity to mount domestic operations as of late.(too bad for them bastards!)

There is a world of difference between groups like ELF and those who share Gore's views and willingness to work within the political system for what they think is right.

Blue
18 May 08,, 00:45
There is a world of difference between groups like ELF and those who share Gore's views and willingness to work within the political system for what they think is right.

My bad. When I said eco, it looked like I meant ecological. What I meant was economical.:biggrin:

zraver
19 May 08,, 07:23
My bad. When I said eco, it looked like I meant ecological. What I meant was economical.:biggrin:

I don't buy that either. I think Bush has done more to hurt the long term economic health of America than Gore could if you cloned 10,000 of him. Bush is a walking talking economic disaster. he has already given away my kids future to pay for his war and our parents prescriptions.

Shek
19 May 08,, 10:24
I don't buy that either. I think Bush has done more to hurt the long term economic health of America than Gore could if you cloned 10,000 of him. Bush is a walking talking economic disaster. he has already given away my kids future to pay for his war and our parents prescriptions.

The burden of OIF is a drop in the bucket of the economy's income over the long-term. Also, Medicare Part D is actually one of the most economically efficient government programs out there.

Blue
19 May 08,, 13:20
I don't buy that either. I think Bush has done more to hurt the long term economic health of America than Gore could if you cloned 10,000 of him. Bush is a walking talking economic disaster. he has already given away my kids future to pay for his war and our parents prescriptions.

I'm not a big Bush fan either, however my dissappointment lies with his soft stance on illegal immigration and failure to secure our borders, which I do consider an economic and security threat.

I must disagree that Bush is the cause of your concerns, I would blame congress for all that.

zraver
20 May 08,, 00:45
The burden of OIF is a drop in the bucket of the economy's income over the long-term. Also, Medicare Part D is actually one of the most economically efficient government programs out there.

How is it economically efficient since it increased federal outlays without increasing income? And the people who get the benefits do not pay taxes.

Shek
20 May 08,, 03:23
How is it economically efficient since it increased federal outlays without increasing income? And the people who get the benefits do not pay taxes.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/world-affairs-board-pub/43038-list-turn-up.html#post461270


In spite of its relatively low benefit levels, the Medicare Part D benefit generate $3.5 billion of annual static deadweight loss reduction, and at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation. These two components alone cover 87% of the social cost of publicly financing the benefit.

Bigfella
20 May 08,, 15:01
Shek,

This drug program sounds suspiciously like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The government bulk-buys widely used drugs & subsidizes their purchase on prescription by the public. In theory (and usually practice) a drug can only get on the PBS if it: 1) meets a clear theraputic need & b) is a clear improvement over existing available drugs.

This latter requirement rewards innovation rather than 'me too' drugs. The other advantage, of course, is a healthier public. Not sure on the economics of that, but I'm betting it saves more money than it costs.

I believe this (and our entire medicare system) is the sort of thing many conservative Americans dismiss as 'socialized medicine' (whatever the hell that means). We think its sorta cool.

Shek
20 May 08,, 16:47
Shek,

This drug program sounds suspiciously like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The government bulk-buys widely used drugs & subsidizes their purchase on prescription by the public. In theory (and usually practice) a drug can only get on the PBS if it: 1) meets a clear theraputic need & b) is a clear improvement over existing available drugs.

This latter requirement rewards innovation rather than 'me too' drugs. The other advantage, of course, is a healthier public. Not sure on the economics of that, but I'm betting it saves more money than it costs.

I believe this (and our entire medicare system) is the sort of thing many conservative Americans dismiss as 'socialized medicine' (whatever the hell that means). We think its sorta cool.

Bigfella,

I'd like to see a better at getting at the same thing - it's a statistical probability that you're going to spend the majority of your medical care "dollars" in the latter years of your life, and so I'd prefer to have a method that would induce savings in the younger years to pay for medical needs in later years instead of having the government be the bill payer.

I've only digested two books thus far on health economics, so I'm not to a point where I have a more settled preferred solution, but I'd prefer to have the government spending only on those who truly need a safety net to eliminate as many free riders as possible.