Are the terrorists winning?

toreskha · #1 09-25-2008, 03:09 AM

Ok, so...al-Qaeda's original stated goal was to destroy the global economy and modernity as we know it and bring us back to a primitive state. Wahabiism doesn't like Western values and capitalism.

So over the span of seven years we have an odd chain of events...
9/11 > Low interest rates > Huge housing demand > ARMs > Toxic debt > High possibility of a recession > Slight possibility of total economic collapse

A recession wouldn't be a total victory, but it would be a bigger effect than any other terrorist attack has ever had. Unfortunately we exacerbated the problem ourselves - basically like trying to stop an arson attempt by using gasoline.

This seems like a highly indirect hit - like one of those crazy movies where someone fires a shot and it bounces off five rocks before hitting the target.

tattedupboy · #2 09-25-2008, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toreskha

Ok, so...al-Qaeda's original stated goal was to destroy the global economy and modernity as we know it and bring us back to a primitive state. Wahabiism doesn't like Western values and capitalism.

So over the span of seven years we have an odd chain of events...
9/11 > Low interest rates > Huge housing demand > ARMs > Toxic debt > High possibility of a recession > Slight possibility of total economic collapse

A recession wouldn't be a total victory, but it would be a bigger effect than any other terrorist attack has ever had. Unfortunately we exacerbated the problem ourselves - basically like trying to stop an arson attempt by using gasoline.

This seems like a highly indirect hit - like one of those crazy movies where someone fires a shot and it bounces off five rocks before hitting the target.

These economic problems you mention would have happened regardless of September 11th. The problems our economy is currently undergoing are probably giving them a reason to brag, but rest assured, one has nothing to do with the other.

toreskha · #3 09-25-2008, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

These economic problems you mention would have happened regardless of September 11th. The problems our economy is currently undergoing are probably giving them a reason to brag, but rest assured, one has nothing to do with the other.

Well, we were already in a slump and we certainly had a lot of mounting consumer debt. However, 9/11 really seems like the straw that broke the camel's back. If nothing else, it sped things up by a few years.

As for this $700 billion (really, $1 trillion if you count the Bear/Sachs cash infusion) bailout...don't we ever learn? Don't fool with the economy, it only comes back to bite later. Poor decisions have consequences. In this case, it seems like we're running away from those consequences rather than just taking it. Rather than accepting the lumps that we so richly deserve, we're trying to "fix" it by burying it under a pile of money.

Over time, the market naturally processes debts back into assets. Given some years, these items would eventually be purchased by people who can either use them or repurpose them as capital. We need to let the market do its thing rather than just dumping taxpayer dollars on it.

tattedupboy · #4 09-25-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toreskha

Well, we were already in a slump and we certainly had a lot of mounting consumer debt. However, 9/11 really seems like the straw that broke the camel's back. If nothing else, it sped things up by a few years.

As for this $700 billion (really, $1 trillion if you count the Bear/Sachs cash infusion) bailout...don't we ever learn? Don't fool with the economy, it only comes back to bite later. Poor decisions have consequences. In this case, it seems like we're running away from those consequences rather than just taking it. Rather than accepting the lumps that we so richly deserve, we're trying to "fix" it by burying it under a pile of money.

Over time, the market naturally processes debts back into assets. Given some years, these items would eventually be purchased by people who can either use them or repurpose them as capital. We need to let the market do its thing rather than just dumping taxpayer dollars on it.

That same market also punishes businesses and people who make bad choices. Rather than allowing them to face the music and take responsibility, the irresponsible ones are being rewarded with a bailout. I wonder if I'll get bailed if I ever make a mistake in balancing my checkbook and overdraw on my account? What about if I default on my student loans?

HK4U · #5 09-25-2008, 11:26 AM

The bail outs will cost a lot more than the President or Secretary of the treasury or any one is really saying because the government does not have the money lying around. It will borrow it from the Federal reserve with interest and before this is over the cost will be in the trillions. God help us.

Canis-Lupus · #6 09-26-2008, 01:12 AM

I'm a little concerned that our Pakistani 'allies' done shot up a Kiowa today, and I'm beginning to wonder how far our ability to cross into their turf on ground/air raids or drones will be tested by their standing forces. Wannabistan province is where ObL & al-Q and the Tallitubbies are holed up, got a gut feeling that if the Pakis keep not helping catch the scum we have been hunting since 9/11 then a [president] McCain may just send a nuke tipped lo-yield predator or 10 on a mission to wipe the place off the map. They have a few nukes to chuck back and B 4 U know it all kindsa buttons are getting pushed.
I posted a similar concern in a thread a week back and now lead is flying, allies are shooting @ each other and the real BG's are the ones who are laughing the loudest about the chaos they have caused, maybe it is time to lite 'em up with some fissile kit and shoot down anything that comes back, which BTW we can stick a bunker-buster 0.1MT nuke down a Paki fueling Cold War delivery rocket long before it even leaves the silo or vehicle they stick it on. Prolly the nation with the most satellites looking down right now waiting for them to try. But what do I know?

C-L

toreskha · #7 09-27-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canis-Lupus

I'm a little concerned that our Pakistani 'allies' done shot up a Kiowa today, and I'm beginning to wonder how far our ability to cross into their turf on ground/air raids or drones will be tested by their standing forces.

We're pumping quite a bit of money into the military budgets of nations like Pakistan and Columbia on an annual basis, but it does absolutely nothing in terms of giving them an incentive to actually win any of these conflicts. They know that soon after the problem is solved, we'll cut them off and they will no longer get money and discounts on expensive toys. It also means that they have no interest in cleaning out the corruption and infiltration of their own ranks, which leads to a total lack of consistency as to what side they're really on.

The MIC is also heavily invested in these ongoing conflicts because it's a great opportunity for them to expand market share. Usually they're also selling "off the shelf" stuff that doesn't require any R&D or marketing efforts. Defense contractors, which have substantial pull at various levels of our government, have no interest whatsoever in seeing conflicts resolved - just as with attorneys who wait to settle because they want to collect a larger fee over time.

tattedupboy · #8 09-29-2008, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HK4U

The bail outs will cost a lot more than the President or Secretary of the treasury or any one is really saying because the government does not have the money lying around. It will borrow it from the Federal reserve with interest and before this is over the cost will be in the trillions. God help us.