If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN Autos)   Can terrorist attacks destroy the world economy?   (yellowtimes.org) divider line 175
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

37 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2002 at 7:04 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-11-13 10:31:45 AM
Jewing
You have no argument. I still don't see where a terrorist attack caused a recession. Go take an economics class, start with micro then go to macro, and see what drives an economy. Hint, it is not stock price.
 
2002-11-13 10:35:05 AM
Don't see the correlation between war with Iraq and terrorist attacks. I am saying that a terrorist attack will NOT cause a recession. I see no proof.
 
2002-11-13 10:39:26 AM
11-13-02 10:15:26 AM Jewing
This conclusion, Lewis: "Oh wait, commies like the YellowTimes folk hate wealth; my point is moot."


Touche. I imagine that YellowTimes is all in favor of great wealth, assuming it is produced in a society where people contribute in direct proportion to their ability, and are compensated based on their need. Me and YellowTimes both are still waiting on that society to rear its egalitarian head. Meanwhile YT will continue to condemn a proven engine of growth (capitalism). They just don't like it 'cuz the wealth it produces is unevenly distributed. Thems are the breaks.
 
2002-11-13 10:39:26 AM
BearGoneFishing:

This from the Asia Times, October 31 article titled "APEC terrorized out of focus."

Here you go: "there is no denying that terrorism has economic impacts. The Bali bombings dealt Indonesia a devastating blow, one that will deny its struggling economy more than $1 billion in foreign exchange due to reduced tourism, and forestall billions more in desperately needed overseas capital." Well, I guess that some people would deny it: BearGoneFishing.
 
2002-11-13 10:40:39 AM
Lewis - Yes, but what you see as condemning I see as criticizing. In order to make something better you have to criticize. That way problems come to light. Unless, of course, you are not interested in making something better.
 
2002-11-13 10:40:59 AM
ha ha - nail in the coffin for BearGoneFishing
 
2002-11-13 10:41:13 AM
Read about the fall of the Roman Empire, that may provide some insight as to why vast and complex civilizations fall.
 
2002-11-13 10:43:31 AM
For Bali yes, because tourism is there main source of income. Any economy with any diversification would not sink into recession.
 
2002-11-13 10:44:06 AM
Ironbar:

Yes. Decadence brought on by insanity, all thanks to lead water pipes.
 
2002-11-13 10:44:37 AM
BearGoneFishing:

Here is another for you. From the Economist, October 28th "APEC, terrorism and trade."

"no leader can afford to ignore the threat to political and economic stability that terrorism poses." Hmm, sound a little like the Ash Pulcifer article?

"[The Bali bomb] also destroyed the tourist industry in Indonesia's most attractive destination and threatened economic recovery in one of Asia's most populous and unstable countries. Now the terrorists have struck again, this time in Moscow."

"[Pacific leaders] endorsed the declaration made by their senior ministers which said that 'terrorism in all its forms is a threat to economic stability in APEC as well as a threat to regional peace and stability. After Bali, and a series of smaller but damaging attacks in the Philippines, all countries in the region have begun to recognize their vulnerability."
 
2002-11-13 10:45:32 AM
BearGoneFishing:

Do I have an argument yet?
 
2002-11-13 10:45:32 AM
Ken Lay has more responsibility ni the current state of the economy than Bush. For thos ewho think it's Bush's fault, you give him too much credit. I don't like him, but he can't hurt the economy any more than I can.
 
2002-11-13 10:47:09 AM
Your right, terrorist attacks brought down, or will bring down the global economy. My bad.
 
2002-11-13 10:47:55 AM
11-13-02 10:44:06 AM Millay
Ironbar:

Yes. Decadence brought on by insanity, all thanks to lead water pipes.


I wish that was all. Would have made that zillion page book a little easier to read
 
2002-11-13 10:51:02 AM
BearGoneFishing:

The issue here is not that it will bring down the global economy, but that it poses a threat to it. To simply write off terrorism as having an insignificant role in the economy is wrong. Whether it will actually destroy the economy is a different matter, one raised by the author, Ash Pulcifer.

I don't agree with everything in YellowTimes.org either. But what is unique about YellowTimes.org is that they have educated writers, who often write in mainstream publications also, that want to have thoughts printed that they couldn't get printed in corporate run magazines.

An article such as this, being so blunt, would never be published in the New York Times (which I am an avid reader of) because it could cause fear and would be looked at harshly by advertisers that fund the NY Times.

That is why non-profit groups, or groups such as this publication, often publish very illuminating articles.
 
2002-11-13 10:54:59 AM
Yea, I would agree on that.
 
2002-11-13 10:56:02 AM
Jewing
My original point was not that terrorist attacks have no economic impact. It was to counter the idea that short market downturns cause a recession. Its simply not true.
 
2002-11-13 10:59:42 AM
Yes, but as I will say again, terrorist attacks do not always result in short market downturns, especially in this hypothetical situation with attacks on major financial centers across the world. Just imagine how the U.S. would respond to such action? They would increase security a tremendous amount which has a correlation with decreased profits. It all costs money and that money has to come from somewhere, usually at the expense of the economy. Or they can just give up on free trade, which would really tank the markets. Plus, we know that would not happen.
 
2002-11-13 11:10:29 AM
Jewing
The issue here is not that it will bring down the global economy, but that it poses a threat to it. To simply write off terrorism as having an insignificant role in the economy is wrong. Whether it will actually destroy the economy is a different matter, one raised by the author, Ash Pulcifer.

Terrorism will not destroy the global economy. But it could put a serious crimp in its style. This is why terrorist have to die. 'Cause they threaten my ability to buy a Ronco Inside-the-egg Scrambler for the low, low price of $12.95. Seriously. They can make it so that everything's more expensive, which in effect makes everyone poorer. And that's EVERYBODY'S problem.
 
2002-11-13 11:12:18 AM
What I'm reading here is that this spate of international terrorism is a wake-up call, and that perhaps the push to globalization has angered folks who are watching the effects, and are not happy about how things are going to turn out. I'm not hearing the glee that Millay reads in the article.

Rather than looking at the warnings that lots of folks aren't happy with globalization as "The Sky is Falling!" Perhaps we should examine the reasons that folks aren't happy with this push--beyond taking a look to our own wallets. Our own economy is based heavily on exploiting trade differences in poorer nations, and it is our vested interest to keep things that way--yet, we decry the conditions that are created, the violence that ensues, and the lack of purchasing power in these nations, the lack of education in nations that can't afford to bring universal literacy to their people because they are busy servicing their debt, and are too busy trying to meet the conditions that the banks who hold their loans impose on their domestic policies. You want smaller nations that are more responsible, they are going to have to have time to play catch up. So long as they are puppets to larger nations' economies, there is going to be unrest, because there are still folks who manage to get enough education to realize that so long as their economies are shackled to another nation's, they can't move foreward. Oops. Too much edumacation can be a bad thing...

This rash of international violence is symptom of things going wrong, and we are bent at treating only the symptoms, not the disease. The disease is still greed. Price of CD's haven't fallen, despite manufacturing costs going down=angry consumers. Answer: Blame the consumer for not buying more, fickle bastards. Price of labor falling for clothing, but prices haven't fallen=angry consumer. Answer: Blame the consumer for not buying more, fickle bastards. Workers angry at conditions in their factories, despite being paid a fraction of what industrialized nations would require, the companies then complain of rising costs...you get the picture.

Globalization in theory isn't neccessarily a bad idea, but the implementation is poor. Hampered by greed. The initial idea of Communism wasn't so bad, very attractive to folks who were held as serfs--all goods and property held in common--but the implementation was very bad in the Russias, corrupted by individual and collective greed. Taking a look at the fall out of unrestrained greed in developing nations isn't chicken little, but it doesn't say nice things about what these folks are doing, and we who benifit from these policies, and sometimes we don't like it when folks point out that we've pooped in our own dog dish.
 
2002-11-13 11:16:49 AM
Anybody else wonder why Hubispert's posts are so long?
 
2002-11-13 11:18:59 AM
Hubiestubert: You are a genius.
 
2002-11-13 11:19:08 AM
Kpar90--Because I came to the Internet late. I'm used to writing full sized papers and articles, not blurbs.
 
2002-11-13 11:25:29 AM
Hubiestubert Globalization in theory isn't neccessarily a bad idea, but the implementation is poor. ... It's a goodidea? Howso?

Not that I'm trying to troll or anything, just honestly curious.
 
2002-11-13 11:26:54 AM
The reason I consider HubieStubert's post to be excellent was that he pointed out many people lose out from globalization.
 
2002-11-13 11:28:44 AM
Hubie: You'll keep their attention beter by keeping it short. Or at least shorter. I'm sure you have plenty of good things to say, but I'm never going to read through a post that long to find out.

Maybe that says something about me.
 
2002-11-13 11:31:13 AM
Rule #2: Never explain yourself unless someone asks you to.
 
2002-11-13 11:31:22 AM
Yeah, it probably does, Kpar.
And that's that you're the majority, and I'm the minority. :)
I like long posts, something to chew on instead of just soundbytes. (the 'soundbyte' being one of the greatest scourges of modern politics)
 
2002-11-13 11:31:22 AM
Hubiestubert, that was very well written.

Why do you suppose it takes religious fanatics to oppose globalization? I am not at all convinced that that's what these whackjobs are really protesting. The Islamikazis are not merely protesting the POLICIES of the West, but the existence of the West itself. They could care less about capitalism. They hate democracy (because of their belief that a theocracy is needed to ensure man's subservience to Allah), our secularism, our tolerance, and our freedom. Socialist/communist identification with their indignance is misplaced. Our economic system is the least of their disagreements with us.
 
2002-11-13 11:36:33 AM
42-23: I'm not just about soundbites. But I won't read a treatise on globalization or any other topic unless I'm paid to.


There are many other scourges of modern politics too, such as religion. That's worse for politics than soundbites.
 
2002-11-13 11:37:52 AM
It doesn't take "religious fanaticism" to oppose globalization. I'm gonna agree with Jim Hightower (mostly) in my opposition - I don't like the idea because it puts too much power to influence too many lives in the hands of too few people that we have too little influence over. There's my problem with the concept.

Practice-wise, it seems to me (but I'm not the brightest of people) to depend on propogating the ignorance and economic weakness of laboring nations so that their labor remains cheap so coroporations and move their labor there to decrease their costs while holding price constant and boosting profits - which then take the form of benefits for the top teirs instead of passed on to consumers or their laborors or such.
 
43%
2002-11-13 11:40:42 AM
What I'm reading here is that this spate of international terrorism is a wake-up call, and that perhaps the push to globalization has angered folks who are watching the effects

Oh, so many in the developing world long for the days of power and influence being based on who has the biggest guns and who can amass large enough armies of semi-retarded, unskilled barbarians to pillage and rape.

Down with the meritocracy. Poverty and government control of your puny life for all.

BTW: our economy -- and that of the entire developed world, is based on the huge technological advances and innovation that capitalism and bootstrapped industrialization has produced. No system is perfect, but capitalism is the best bet around.

Of course, any economic system used by the US must be inherently evil. Not the transition to a modern economic system, but the economic system itself. The biggest fallacy in socialism is that everything must be easy and handed to everyone on a bronze platter. Gotta love the smell of entitlement in the morning...

I got an idea: We take our toys and go home. We'll go ahead and return polio, horse drawn buggies, and pisspots back to the developing world.
You can, of course, develop solutions to these problems at the point of a gun. Much preferable to the technological advances that free market capitalism seems to encourage.
 
2002-11-13 11:41:58 AM
Re "Soundbytes" : I'm sorry, Kpar. It was meant to be mostly in jest.

Second : You're right, religion is the worst thing to happen to politics, ever.
 
2002-11-13 11:42:55 AM
42_23--In theory, globalization holds that goods will be produced by those who can do so at the lowest price, and businesses will benifit, and pass on that savings to their customers. Competition will weed out the less effective. Goods produced will find the best markets in a global economy, so that goods that are overproduced for your local economy--let's say corn or beans--will be sold someplace where it can get a much better price, perhaps across the globe, or perhaps just down the road. Folks get what they need, at the best price, and thus smaller economies get a boost from larger ones. Not hampered by local markets, retailers can find the best price, and pass that onto consumers, who will thus have more money to spend on other goods. Sounds wonderful? Would be too, IF we could trust folks not to get too damn greedy, and continue to charge their normal price for goods they've recieved cheaper than normal. IF we could trust folks not to gouge their trading partners. IF we didn't watch the largest of corporate entities push for legislation that effectively stifles smaller economies to be beholden to the larger. IF we didn't see these self-same corporate entities push for international policies that do the same, to crush competition. That is the problem with globalization as it stands now, is that it isn't being practiced with any kind of restraint or responsibility, and our leaders probably recognize this, but are so deep in other folks' pockets, that they don't care.
 
2002-11-13 11:45:05 AM
Lewis: "Why do you suppose it takes religious fanatics to oppose globalization?"

No, actually, huge populations throughout the world oppose globalization. The religious fanatics were the only ones with the balls enough to fight back, since they believe they are going to heaven with virgins and all that hoopla
 
2002-11-13 11:45:52 AM
I don't know what terrorists could do to the world economy that President Bush hasn't done already. He's doing their work for them, they should just sit back and watch and enjoy the show.
 
2002-11-13 11:46:50 AM
Rather than looking at the warnings that lots of folks aren't happy with globalization as "The Sky is Falling!" Perhaps we should examine the reasons that folks aren't happy with this push--beyond taking a look to our own wallets. Our own economy is based heavily on exploiting trade differences in poorer nations,

No, it's not. Though the proportion of our GDP from imports and exports is rising, it's still pretty small. And much of that porportion comes from trade with other developed nations. Trade with developing nations does not fuel our economy by any stretch of the imagination; instead, companies are investing in these nations with the hope that in the future the nations will turn into economic powerhouses.

and it is our vested interest to keep things that way--yet, we decry the conditions that are created, the violence that ensues, and the lack of purchasing power in these nations, the lack of education in nations that can't afford to bring universal literacy to their people because they are busy servicing their debt, and are too busy trying to meet the conditions that the banks who hold their loans impose on their domestic policies.

The banks impose these conditions to keep more investors from fleeing the country; it's harsh but necessary. And remember that these investors are not trading with the countries yet; they're building up infrastructure.

You want smaller nations that are more responsible, they are going to have to have time to play catch up. So long as they are puppets to larger nations' economies, there is going to be unrest, because there are still folks who manage to get enough education to realize that so long as their economies are shackled to another nation's, they can't move foreward. Oops. Too much edumacation can be a bad thing...

Whenever the economy in a country is relatively bad, people will be restless. People don't care whether their economy is "shackled" or not; Argentina voluntarily shackled the peso to the dollar and everyone was a-ok with that until the current set of troubles.

People in developing nations don't want to be left alone by the world; they WANT the rest of the world to invest in their countries, creating new jobs and products. Sometimes they get royally pised with the conditions imposed by the rest of the world for this capital, rightly or wrongly. Either way, the answer to their troubles is not blocking off foreign investment. Look at Africa if you don't believe me; they have successfully fended off the evil capitalist dogs.
 
2002-11-13 11:50:20 AM
RJames: "Trade with developing nations does not fuel our economy by any stretch of the imagination; instead, companies are investing in these nations with the hope that in the future the nations will turn into economic powerhouses."

Yes, but the U.S. still exploits trade. They allow subsidies for their own industries but then provide strings on loans to smaller countries saying that they must drop all subsidies.
 
2002-11-13 11:50:24 AM
IF we didn't see these self-same corporate entities push for international policies that do the same, to crush competition. That is the problem with globalization as it stands now, is that it isn't being practiced with any kind of restraint or responsibility, and our leaders probably recognize this, but are so deep in other folks' pockets, that they don't care.

The solution isn't "restraint and responsibility," (read crushing regulation) but getting more companies into the game in order to break up monopolies, the only types of companies that can price gouge.
 
2002-11-13 11:52:30 AM
43%--I'm not saying that the system is evil--just flawed. It has spawned the very folks we fear, and if ignore that fact, we are going to continue to make the mistakes that allowed us to create them.

I think that we can have a capitalist system that is responsible, and that may mean that a shareholder in East Podunk makes a few cents less a quarter, but keeps little Arway fed, gets him educated, and makes him a more happier, more productive member of his own society, and thus less likely to pick up an AK-47 to strike at the imperialists who threaten his way of life.
 
2002-11-13 11:54:41 AM
Hubiestubert - Oooh. Right, I see... Does sound kind of like a good idea, though there's a niggle in it bothering me like a bit of popcorn shell stuck in the gums that you can't quite place. On the surface it does seem like a good idea, though, and thanks for the enlightenment. :)

And yeah, it's the IFs that are the bastards, isn't it? "restraint and responsibility" are the key words. It's funny, those are what it seems that CEOs and Boards rally against, if not outright than in practice. To them (and this seems to be the libertarian standpoint, too, hence my problem with their party), it's not about being "restrained and responsible" so that the whole system works for all their fellow (fecking stupid corporate citizenship) citizens (civic rights can be said to imply some civic responsibilities), but rather doing all the cutthroat deals and buying of politicians to get the edge over everyone and deliver the most money to themselves and drive up stock prices - so their investors benefit as well, however many - or few, they are; while everyone else is left out in the cold.

It amuses me, on a brief aside, the self-interest is supposed to be the self-correcting mechanism that keeps freemarket running, but (granted, rampant) self-interest is what's defeating this system.

Anyway, I'm leaving the Comp Lab at school now to go home, go out to a different campus (better advisors), and eat lunch, so any further replies of mine to this exchange will be coming in a few hours instead of a few minutes. However, thanks for it so far. :)
 
2002-11-13 11:57:02 AM
In Holland, we have almost lost our entire language due to globalization. THey predict that in a few decades, no one will speak Dutch anymore in the Netherlands.
 
2002-11-13 11:59:33 AM
Takeitdown
No, actually, huge populations throughout the world oppose globalization. The religious fanatics were the only ones with the balls enough to fight back, since they believe they are going to heaven with virgins and all that hoopla

Yes, many throughout the world oppose globalization. Mostly Starbucks sipping hippy college students in Seattle, and French chauvanists concerned that Big Macs will become more popular than stinky cheese. Sorry, enough with the flamebait. Seriously though: Globalization is NOT what Islamic terrorists are fighting. You anti-globalization socialists see in them an ally where there is none.
 
2002-11-13 12:01:14 PM
Quote--"Rather than looking at the warnings that lots of folks aren't happy with globalization as "The Sky is Falling!"
......................................

Dudes...the sky IS falling. It's just not over our heads just yet.
 
43%
2002-11-13 12:03:19 PM
ZachMorello: two words: Spanish Netherlands.
 
2002-11-13 12:04:19 PM
RJames--Perhaps getting more folks in the mix would be good, but given the push to merge and form larger entities, it seems less likely. Enforcing current regulations might not also hurt, if they aren't struck down by treaties like NAFTA...therein lies the rub. Greater competition would improve the markets, but the players would have to give up market share, and thus profit, and driven by that, they seek to crush any competitor, or absorb them. Again, the system isn't evil, just flawed, given the current state of things.
 
2002-11-13 12:07:28 PM
Islamic Terrorists are a good ally to socialists simply because they have a common enemy : the United States. Whether or not they share the exact same goals doesn't matter. Both will be happy when the United States falls.
 
2002-11-13 12:17:43 PM
Tommyg, the whole freakin' non-Islamic world is the enemy of Islamic terrorists. The United States is simply the most prominent target. Pim Fortuyn (sorry, I can't remember how to spell his name - I'm winging it) was right to be afraid. Islamic fundies want to take away EVERYBODY'S social freedoms. You can kiss tolerance of women's/minority/homosexual etc etc rights goodbye. They hate what the Netherlands and France and every other European democracy stand for too. Some ally.
 
2002-11-13 12:19:26 PM
RJames--Perhaps getting more folks in the mix would be good, but given the push to merge and form larger entities, it seems less likely. Enforcing current regulations might not also hurt, if they aren't struck down by treaties like NAFTA...therein lies the rub. Greater competition would improve the markets, but the players would have to give up market share, and thus profit, and driven by that, they seek to crush any competitor, or absorb them. Again, the system isn't evil, just flawed, given the current state of things.

Sounds like a job for Teddy and the Trustbusters :)

But seriously, my main point is that 99% of the expected profits from globalization have yet to be realized. Most of the wealth created by capitalism, and the financial panics that have happened over the years, have very little to do with actual trade and everything to do with capital and investment. So as the global market grows there's plenty of room for new players to emerge without existing players having to give up much. I'm all for breaking up monopolies, though.
 
2002-11-13 12:23:09 PM
Islamic Fundamentalist oppose the US because they see in her the seeds to their own destruction. The destruction of their way of life. Again, these are symptoms of a larger problem. Globalization is going to occur, we are too connected to not join our economies further, but we can do so in a more responsible manner, and that is going to be working itself out for long time yet, and in that mean time, we are going to see a lot shakedowns, both economically as well as in domestic unrest in various nations. We are probably going to see a few more wars as a result, and in the end, things will come down to a nice homeostasis, but that isn't near yet. Not by a long shot.

We will lose things in this push for a global economy, and with that will come a new culture, and when you have cultural shifts, you have unrest. Folks don't like too much change. It scares them. It scares them more when they can see that they may be obsolete. There are things we can do to make these changes less dramatic, slower, and eventually more palatable and profitable in the long run. We are still in the middling portion of this push, and it's not going to shake out for a while yet. We will see more economic and social unrest for a years to come, and folks are going to target the US, China eventually when she comes out of her shell, and the EU for it. If Japan can regroup, they may see a bit of it as well.

When it shakes out, things aren't going to be all roses, but they will be eventually more equitable and fair all around, but it's going to take a bit to work that out. We're just lucky enough to be around for the tweens of this push.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report