i think you're missing the larger impact of the attack. the impact wasn't limited to the loss of the buildings themselves, or the people in them. lower manhattan was closed for weeks afterwards. tons of small businesses closed, with effects that rippled throughout the economy of nyc. people stopped traveling. i worked for a company that produced corporate meetings and events. overnight, 6 clients canceled, with losses in the several millions of dollars. the company made cutbacks, and i lost my job. it took four months to find a new one, and that one paid considerably less than the one i had. so four months of living on $400/week, with a new baby, and then a new job that barely paid the bills? you bet your ass there was an impact, and I'm still paying for it.
bass, it's pretty clear that what I am ridiculing in order to boost my own self esteem is not the larger effects of 9-11 on the global economy, but IROC it's childlike reasoning that the "World Trade Center" apparently housed the crucial engines of global trade, due to its nomenclature, when nothing could be further from the truth. Aon Re relocated, as did SABW, and many other firms housed in WTC. It's like me saying that the closure of your local "foodworld" would cause worldwide famine.
If someone thinks the events of 9/11 has no or little impact on the US economy, he has no right to talk about economics. Freedom and security is the basis of any successful market economy.
Nobody ever said that. Read the posts. Or is it your position that the actual office space of the World Trade Center was "our strongest link to world markets" and that the physical locality of the WTC handled a substantial percentage of total global trade?
I think I mentioned specific areas which not be affected to the the extreme extent. That national average for Salary would not drop by thousands of dollars because of 9-11 for example.
I don't know what your problem is, or you actually accept the concept that 9/11 had a large impact in the US economy, but pounding to death on a weak argument for a correct answer is rather childish.
I don't think anybody argued that 9/11 didn't have an impact on our economy to begin with. In all fairness your tone entering into the debate wasn't one of somebody open to debate. You said if people don't think( ) they have no business talking about economics. That doesn't sound like someone open to discussion. It sounds like somebody who believes one thing and doesn't believe anybody else with differing opinions should be talking. That may not have been what you meant, and I'm willing to believe it's not. But I can understand why others might think that is what you meant. It was the impression the post left. Add to this the fact that nobody was denying 9/11 had an impact on our economy. I think everyone knows that it did.
There is no way to answer you without elaborating, and I don't feel like lecturin gon econ 101. I'll try to be brief. (1) Salary goes down by no means indicating economy is bad. Corporate profits for example is going up. GNP/GDP is a better measure. (2) Without a model, we have no way of knowing if the event of 9/11 does bring down the production to a point that wages go down in thousands. You can't say with full confidence a prior that it's not possible. (3) The problem is not the extreme event itself. If it were an earthquake that brought down the WTC, I wound't be saying this. The problem is the muffle on the economy, because the event brings doubts about the security, which is the backbone of the market economy. (4) let me give out some examples. Many companies would delay investments or hiring if they perceive security problem would slow down the economy. People travel less, business and personal, which is a big hit on the travel industry, and will ripple through the economy. Companies may slow down investment because they worriy about oil price and supply in the aftermath of 9/11. Companies need to spend/divert resouces to beef up their private security measure. Cheap labor may become an issue because of the more strigent immigration regulations. etc etc. (5) Market macro-economy is a slow process. Expectation plays a big part in it. Even if the situatin improves, the economy itself may take a while to recover.
I understand the ripple effect many events could have in the economy. But to say that the ripple effect from the bombing of the WTC, would make the entire nations average salary be thousands of dollars less in 2004, I don't buy it. You are correct that without a model we can't be 100% sure.
You may think that corporate profits going up while salaries decline is a good thing, but your opinion doesn't put food in my baby's stomach to replace what I have lost from my salary cuts.
My comments by no means state my preference of one to another. I was merely pointing out he facts. Please do not put words in my mouth. BTW, I hate politics. I hate putting words into other people's mouth more.
