3 ms·
Cheaper how, though? It does seem that a lot of the costs have been externalized or have gone otherwise unacknowledged. Factoring in the losses sustained by unr
by bsanr2 6y ago
Cheaper how, though? It does seem that a lot of the costs have been externalized or have gone otherwise unacknowledged. Factoring in the losses sustained by unrest, despair, missed opportunity, rent and interest, and so forth, I think you come to see a more accurate model than the "stocks go up" one that outputs a much rosier picture of America's economic wellbeing than is reality.
At the very least, the War on Terror blows a $6 trillion hole in whatever the calculations are; a less anxious, more homogeneously affluent America might not have acted so rashly following 9/11, and might not have even conjured the political and economic global paradigm that gave rise to al Qaeda in the first place.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> It does seem that a lot of the costs have been externalized or have gone otherwise unacknowledged Probably. But if you’re selling a dishwasher to someone in Poland or Peru at 5x your competitor, you’re going to lose market share.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoYeah, but that cost differential was dependent on a political choice to allow imports from poorer countries. There's no law of the universe that required this to be so. To a large extent, it's the removal of capital controls and the signing of trade agreements that facilitated this, and those were 100% political choices.