| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 10/10/2006 : 03:29:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Osama's self-stated goal was not to rack up some kind of video-game kill score, but to disrupt the economic [WTC], military [Pentagon], and political [Flight 93 was headed either for the White House or the Capitol] infrastructure of the US. None of this happened, though you might say the event did make it possible for the neocons to bully us into wasting untold billions in Iraq. In other words, it didn't work.
I'm not so sure it didn't work. Bin Laden's stated goal is the bankruptcy of the USA, here are some extracts from one of his statements to the USA as printed in the Washington Post:-
"...our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers as we alongside the Mujahedin bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy...
...al-Qa'ida spent $500,000 on the event <9/11>, while America in the incident and its aftermath lost -- according to the lowest estimates -- more than 500 billion dollars, meaning that every dollar of al-Qa'ida defeated a million dollars... As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record, astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars. And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahedin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan..."
- Osama bin Laden, November 2004
Now see what Professor Laurence Kotlikoff has to say in a report published in the July/August 2006 issue of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. The report was commissioned by the US Federal Reserve. Here's the abstract (my bold):-
Is the United States bankrupt? Many would scoff at this notion. Others would argue that financial implosion is just around the corner. This paper explores these views from both partial and general equilibrium perspectives. It concludes that countries can go broke, that the United States is going broke, that remaining open to foreign investment can help stave off bankruptcy, but that radical reform of U.S. fiscal institutions is essential to secure the nation�s economic future. The paper offers three policies to eliminate the nation�s enormous fiscal gap and avert bankruptcy: a retail sales tax, personalized Social Security, and a globally budgeted universal healthcare system.
- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, July/August 2006, 88(4), pp. 235-49.
here are three possible solutions as outlined in this report and summarised elsewhere:-
1) Double personal and corporate income taxes
2) Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 67%
3) Cut Federal discretionary spending by 143%.
naturally none of these are acceptable or even possible, but an alternative would be to implement ALL of the following:-
1) An immediate national sales tax of 33%;
2) privatize social security in which only accrued benefits are paid, not the projected benefits, plus putting an immediate lid on medical costs; and
3) reduce discretionary federal spending by 20%.
So, I fear that Osama bin Laden has quite possibly already won this particular dispute. I think his IQ is substantially higher than the US President's. And he has a much longer time-frame than is common for Western governments who seldom think beyond the next election (remember him talking about the 10 years to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan as if it was a non-issue). The way I see it, bin Laden set a trap, the USA fell deeper into the trap than what bin Laden could possibly have hoped, and is going to have great difficulty extracting itself from this trap. |
 |
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 12:37:07
|
Well, the US economy is still robust. Tax increases [or, more likely, rollbacks of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans] are undoubtedly in the cards. [Republicans like to tar Democrats as the "tax and spend" party. They've now revealed themselves as the "charge and spend" guys.] But debt alone is not necessarily an indication of bankruptcy.
Comparing Osama's IQ to Bush's is beside the point. Bush is brighter than his press would lead you to believe, not as bright as his slavish devotees would lead you to believe. For instance, his GPA at Yale was actually slightly higher than John Kerry's. But then, neither man really tore it up in college.
What Bush is is arrogant ["I'm God's candidate, and God wants the US to prevail"] and incurious ["I never much thought about foreign affairs before I became president"]. The mess in Iraq didn't come from the fairly uncreative Mr. Bush himself; he's merely the figurehead. It sprang from the people around him: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, et. al. The closest any of these chickenhawks, Bush included, have ever been to a shot fired in anger is a round of DOOM. Which may be all this war is to them. |
Edited by - randall on 10/10/2006 12:38:15 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 23:16:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
But debt alone is not necessarily an indication of bankruptcy.
True. A company that loses money every year can stay afloat indefinitely as long as the market continues to cover it's cashflow deficit.
I'm not an economist, but I would regard a study done by the US Federal Reserve on the state of the USA that concludes "that the United States is going broke" as a cause for serious concern.quote:
Comparing Osama's IQ to Bush's is beside the point.
I mentioned this as I'm not aware of any 'mistake' bin Laden has ever made (given his raison d��tre). Whereas the Bush administration has arguably made major strategic and tactical blunders that are far more damaging to their own country than any mistake bin Laden could potentially make would be to his organisation.quote:
What Bush is is arrogant ["I'm God's candidate, and God wants the US to prevail"] and incurious ["I never much thought about foreign affairs before I became president"]. The mess in Iraq didn't come from the fairly uncreative Mr. Bush himself; he's merely the figurehead. It sprang from the people around him: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, et. al.
Yep I agree with this. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 09:48:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Well, the US economy is still robust.
I'm not sure I would use the word 'robust', especially after watching over two years of the US Dollar weakening against almost every other currency in the world. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 11:19:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Well, the US economy is still robust.
I'm not sure I would use the word 'robust', especially after watching over two years of the US Dollar weakening against almost every other currency in the world.
A large part of the US economy is extremely robust - the consumption part. For decades the US has had an astonishing willingness and ability to consume the rest of the world's surpluses. I'd say this will continue until the rest of the world is no longer prepared to lend their surpluses to the US to consume in the hope of being paid later. I've no idea if/when this might change. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 23:17:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Well, the US economy is still robust.
I'm not sure I would use the word 'robust', especially after watching over two years of the US Dollar weakening against almost every other currency in the world.
A large part of the US economy is extremely robust - the consumption part. For decades the US has had an astonishing willingness and ability to consume the rest of the world's surpluses. I'd say this will continue until the rest of the world is no longer prepared to lend their surpluses to the US to consume in the hope of being paid later. I've no idea if/when this might change.
I don't want to get into a Monty-Python-like gainsaying contest, so this is likely my last post on this issue. But I'd just like to add some thoughts to the mix.
The consumption part is the US economy. And though the current trade balance admittedly isn't in our favor, it's wrong to isolate the American consumer: the rest of the industrialized world happily joins in, even when our products are not good for them [e.g., McDonalds, stupid action movies]. Even if the US dollar has slid against other currencies, it remains the preferred currency of international business, just as English remains its preferred language. I believe this is because, on top of its ineluctable economic clout, the US is considered one of the world's most stable systems of government; even when its leaders make mistakes, they're only temporary, because everybody knows those leaders will eventually be retired -- and, by the way, bloodlessly.[There have been assassinations, sure, but never a coup.]
What I think you may be referring to instead is the US's balance sheet, which I agree could use a hell of a lot of constructive work. Most sentients here don't want a budget deficit [as we have now], and don't want a budget surplus [as we had under Clinton]. What we want is to add out even on an annual basis, led by somebody smart enough to realize that the main priority of a surplus is to pay down the national debt. [Conservatives jumped on the Clinton surpluses as proof that we were being overtaxed. They are very wily people...]
All this is to say that while Osama has indeed baited us into spending unnecessary billions on Iraq [and the Osama madness probably causes you to take your shoes off before you board an airplane; that's also unnecessary, a bit of theater to make us all feel "safer"], he has not come anywhere close to bankrupting the US. And as for his boyz being so intelligent: remember the original WTC bombers in the early Nineties? The Feds had them cased, but finally nailed them because of a really stupid thing: one of these geniuses kept going back to the rental place to demand his deposit back for the van that had carried the explosives! Osama has patience, granted. [Eastern culture teaches this trait, as the Brits were astonished to re-learn when the 99-year lease for Hong Kong expired, and the Chinese, who had been waiting patiently for a solid century, said, "Time's up. Hand it over."] But don't tell me he's some Bond-villain Brainiac pitted against Bush's country rube. Both stereotypes wither in the light of reality.
Pwaah. Too heavy. Think I'll go write some reviews now. |
Edited by - randall on 10/11/2006 23:36:59 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 00:47:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
The consumption part is the US economy. And though the current trade balance admittedly isn't in our favor, it's wrong to isolate the American consumer:
I think it's common to isolate the American consumer as they're by far the biggest and therefore by far the most important. I.e., turn off the American consumer and the rest of the world has nowhere to put their surplusses. Hence the ability of the American consumer to continue consuming is a big deal, like it or not. Nobody will care if the over-indulgent Kiwi consumer panics and stops consuming.quote:
Even if the US dollar has slid against other currencies, it remains the preferred currency of international business, just as English remains its preferred language. I believe this is because, on top of its ineluctable economic clout, the US is considered one of the world's most stable systems of government...
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I'd guess it's simply a function of size.quote:
What I think you may be referring to instead is the US's balance sheet, which I agree could use a hell of a lot of constructive work.
I wasn't really referring to anything other than the Federal Reserve study that I linked to earlier that said that the US is going broke (and pointed out that it can be averted with some very serious measures). I'm not an economist, hence I listen to such reports, as I listen to people like Warren Buffet and George Soros who've proven that they know what they're talking about. I certainly don't know what I'm talking about on such matters, so I just quote others. Sure, I trade financial markets for a living but concentrate specifically on market psychology, not economics or fundamentals.
"Ask five economists and you'll get five opinions, or six if one of them went to Harvard."  quote:
All this is to say that while Osama has indeed baited us into spending unnecessary billions on Iraq he has not come anywhere close to bankrupting the US.
Let's hope not. The Fed report suggests he might be closer than some think. (Admittedly I made the connection between bin Laden's goal of bankrupting the US and the Fed report 2 years later stating that the US is going broke.)quote:
And as for his boyz being so intelligent: remember the original WTC bombers in the early Nineties? The Feds had them cased, but finally nailed them because of a really stupid thing: one of these geniuses kept going back to the rental place to demand his deposit back for the van that had carried the explosives!
I laughed at that one too. A fine candidate for "World's Dumbest Criminals".  quote:
But don't tell me he's some Bond-villain Brainiac pitted against Bush's country rube.
Funnily enough, this is exactly the way I see bin Laden (although I'm well aware Bush doesn't run the USA). I think most think of bin Laden as a hairy camel-riding fanatic somewhere in the desert who managed to throw some sand into the giant's eye. I think he's far more dangerous than that.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 14:59:00
|
I saw the film last night. While watching it, I thought it was so-so, around 3/5. (This is low for me; I give almost everything I see at the cinema at least 4/5 and most things 5/5.) However, I had assumed that the film would be all about the characters heroically rescuing people and was pleased that it was not. There is a quite stupid review on the I.M.D.B. criticising it for not showing all the events and deaths, but this would have been a waste of time since everyone is already totally familiar with that. It came as a complete surprise to me at the end of the film that it turned out to be about non-fictional individuals. This bumped it up to 4/5, and I don't really see how it could have been improved.
With regards to its emotional impact, I was a little moved at the end, but that was all. I'm not usually moved by films about real tragedies, since they are always so much less than the tragedies themselves. But as an event, while it's more significant for me than most other events involving that number of deaths, I can appreciate that it is much more significant for New Yorkers. Having said that, Americans do seem to portray it as an American tragedy, but it is also the worst act of terrorism (I loathe how in the aftermath they decided to start using the word terror for this, which had never been used for it before) against the citizens of many other countries. I think I would be much more affected by a film about the Russian school massacre, not just because it involved so many children but because it unfolded over days and because the Russian government fucked things up so badly.
There are a lot of stupid posts in the threads on I.M.D.B. There, I also came across this - I cannot tell whether it is serious or ironic. |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 15:44:41
|
Actually Sean, I think you're underestimating the general public. Quite often I'm disgusted by the level of ignorance around me regarding world events, but I think most Americans - I don't know about other nations - are aware that Osama bin Laden is a mega-billionaire oil heir from Saudi Arabia who went to very expensive private schools and was expelled from that country because he was constantly creating a "fuss" over that nation's alliance with the United States, and eventually decided to use his immense fortune to wage a war against Western Civilization rather than using it to improve the lives of the very people he's claiming to be fighting for.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
World Trade Center
