I don't buy it. We would survive and perhaps be stronger in the very
long run. Usama might agree that it would be a win, but ultimately
it wouldn't be.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

We all seem to be having a problem defining "win." But be rest assured
that
terrorism can destroy. A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington,
DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression so deep it conceivably
could not recover. The stock markets would collapse and commerce would
grind to a near-standstill. You may not call that a "win," but I'll bet
bin
Laden might.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ...
I don't buy it. We would survive and perhaps be stronger in the very
long run. Usama might agree that it would be a win, but ultimately
it wouldn't be.



I dont buy it either. Did the attack on pearl harbor cause a
depression?. If those slack dick terrorist try to pull off here what
they did in spain its going to backfire on them bigtime. Americans
like the way president bush has delt with terrorist, he going to keep
on them until they are all dead or rotting at Gitmo.

Joe



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

We all seem to be having a problem defining "win." But be rest assured
that
terrorism can destroy. A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington,
DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression so deep it conceivably
could not recover. The stock markets would collapse and commerce would
grind to a near-standstill. You may not call that a "win," but I'll bet
bin
Laden might.

Max

Joe wrote:
I dont buy it either. Did the attack on pearl harbor cause a
depression?

Good rhetorical question.

Why is the tremendous amount of spending on the war in Iraq not helping
the economy more? I don't really know, but I can offer a couple of
possibilities, none of which look good for Bush/Cheney.

.. If those slack dick terrorist try to pull off here what
they did in spain its going to backfire on them bigtime. Americans
like the way president bush has delt with terrorist, he going to keep
on them until they are all dead or rotting at Gitmo.

You mean like the ones that have been let go, after over a year in jail,
because there is no reason to assume they were ever terrorists?

If President Bush and his administration were in fact going after
terrorists, I'd applaud their efforts. But they are not, they are
pursuing incredibly huge profits (and even that is not enough, as
evidenced by Halliburton's ~$90 million overcharges) while ignoring the
defense of the country.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

Joe wrote:
I dont buy it either. Did the attack on pearl harbor cause a
depression?

Good rhetorical question.

Why is the tremendous amount of spending on the war in Iraq not helping
the economy more?

Probably because we don't have a tangible enemy, as we did in WWII. We are
jousting with shadows, and not inflicting much damage in the so-called "war
on terrorism." Might as well be ****ing platinum down the toilet. Tangible
results and benefits have positive effects on an economy. Note how the
stock market bumped when the statue of Saddam was torn down. Also note how
it has fluctuated every time bad news from the Iraqi front airs.

Max

"DSK" wrote.
Why is the tremendous amount of spending on the war in Iraq not helping
the economy more?


Maxprop wrote:
Probably because we don't have a tangible enemy, as we did in WWII.

No. Dollars don't care about ideology.

Have you ever heard of the term "velocity" referring to money &
economics? It may or may not be the real reason, but the easiest way to
explain the current situation (huge increase in gov't spending, no or
only very small increase in aggregate demand or the overall economy) is
that the velocity of the money spent is not high enough to generate more
dollars being spent.

I would explain this by saying that the people reaping these huge war
profits are not spending the money as they rake it in. Probably sending
it overseas.


... Note how the
stock market bumped when the statue of Saddam was torn down. Also note how
it has fluctuated every time bad news from the Iraqi front airs.

The stock market is only a tiny portion of the overall economy. And it
is a follower, not a leader, in the overall economy. For example, in
1929 we had an ongoing recession that was not reflected in the stock
market... instead the stock market ballooned even more... for a while...
The dot-com bust was the same. It made no sense whatever to place a huge
valuation on companies with no profits and no productivity. And guess
what, eventually the stock market followed!

Suggested reading:
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books...1929crash.html

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message

"DSK" wrote.
Why is the tremendous amount of spending on the war in Iraq not helping
the economy more?


Maxprop wrote:
Probably because we don't have a tangible enemy, as we did in WWII.

No. Dollars don't care about ideology.

Have you ever heard of the term "velocity" referring to money &
economics? It may or may not be the real reason, but the easiest way to
explain the current situation (huge increase in gov't spending, no or
only very small increase in aggregate demand or the overall economy) is
that the velocity of the money spent is not high enough to generate more
dollars being spent.

You seem to imply that money is an autonomous medium, moving irrespective of
the whims and wishes of the humans that handle it. Interesting.


I would explain this by saying that the people reaping these huge war
profits are not spending the money as they rake it in. Probably sending
it overseas.

Oh, so it's not autonomous. Okay, your point immediately above may be
correct. Overseas investment is increasing daily. Nothing new, really, but
at least it should be reflected in the world economic picture. But it
ain't, at least not currently w/r/t the Iraq war.

... Note how the
stock market bumped when the statue of Saddam was torn down. Also note
how
it has fluctuated every time bad news from the Iraqi front airs.

The stock market is only a tiny portion of the overall economy. And it
is a follower, not a leader, in the overall economy.

In theoretical economic parlance, yes. But the activity of the markets
(global, not just the US) have a huge impact upon the decisions and actions
of those who control vast amounts of money. The markets aren't strictly
followers, rather they are part of a larger symbiotic relationship, replete
with feedback loops.

For example, in
1929 we had an ongoing recession that was not reflected in the stock
market... instead the stock market ballooned even more... for a while...
The dot-com bust was the same. It made no sense whatever to place a huge
valuation on companies with no profits and no productivity. And guess
what, eventually the stock market followed!

Suggested reading:
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books...1929crash.html

It's been a while since my college econ, but I do recall some of the
features of the '29 crash.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
You seem to imply that money is an autonomous medium, moving irrespective of
the whims and wishes of the humans that handle it. Interesting.

Not at all. Just referring to an economic concept. Money doesn't do
anything by itself, obviously. Equally obvious is that not everybody
does the same thing with their money: some spend it one place, some
spend it another, some save more, some save less.

What I am saying is that with the tremendous increase in U.S. gov't
spending, and the continued economic doldrums, it looks like the people
who received that money did not go out and spend it in ways that help
the U.S. economy.

As an aside, it seems likely to me that much of the money handed out for
the Iraq war is now being spent by overseas corporate types... it will
get back to us, eventually, but in the meantime it has done us little
(if any) good... economically and other ways...


The stock market is only a tiny portion of the overall economy. And it
is a follower, not a leader, in the overall economy.


In theoretical economic parlance, yes. But the activity of the markets
(global, not just the US) have a huge impact upon the decisions and actions
of those who control vast amounts of money. The markets aren't strictly
followers, rather they are part of a larger symbiotic relationship, replete
with feedback loops.

Unfortunately the feedback loop is mostly hysteresis.

As a market for capital, the stock market is important to the economy.
In any other way, it is parasitic.

DSK

"Joe" wrote
.... Americans like the way president bush has delt with terrorist,

Too bad he quit dealing with terrorists to go whip up on Israel's enemy
Saddam.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I don't buy it. We would survive and perhaps be stronger in the very
long run.

In whose lifetime? Do you invest in the market, Ganz? Do you honestly
believe there would be anything left for your retirement following such an
attack? If so, invest away, and good luck.

If you really believe your statement (above) why not supply al Qaeda with a
nuke or three to *strengthen* the US in the long run?

Max

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

We all seem to be having a problem defining "win." But be rest assured
that
terrorism can destroy. A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington,
DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression so deep it
conceivably
could not recover. The stock markets would collapse and commerce would
grind to a near-standstill. You may not call that a "win," but I'll bet
bin
Laden might.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message k.net...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I don't buy it. We would survive and perhaps be stronger in the very
long run.

In whose lifetime? Do you invest in the market, Ganz? Do you honestly
believe there would be anything left for your retirement following such an
attack? If so, invest away, and good luck.

What if your investments were in Clean up type companies, radation
detection companys, body bag mfgrs, coffin mfgrs, construction,
lumber, bricks, glass ect.

I think you underestimate the American people Max. You need to drive
across country and look at the almost unlimited supply of resources.
If Americans all got involved and cared like they did in WWII this
great nation can overcome anything.

Like that jap said "I fear all we have done is awaken an angry giant"

We are on the terrorist's like chickens on a june bug. They are very
busy trying not to get killed right now. Lets keep up the pressure.

It's easy to get sucker punched, its stupid to get sucker punched
twice.

Joe






If you really believe your statement (above) why not supply al Qaeda with a
nuke or three to *strengthen* the US in the long run?

Max

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

We all seem to be having a problem defining "win." But be rest assured
that
terrorism can destroy. A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington,
DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression so deep it
conceivably
could not recover. The stock markets would collapse and commerce would
grind to a near-standstill. You may not call that a "win," but I'll bet
bin
Laden might.

Max