[liberallarry]

I think we should be discussing this, even if it is only a possibility. If the terrorists launch a second attack, which is predicted, it will become a certainty.

[Azrael]

We have been in a recession for the past 12 months or so. Undoubtedly this will lead to further economic problems--however, I believe the foundation of our economy to be strong. If Bush is smart, he will submit a package of further tax cuts to congress that must slash capital gains taxes. If we keep cutting taxes and lowering interest rates, our economy will pick up next about 2nd or 3rd quarter next year.

[billybudd]

Again, the old mentality that a government "stimulus" is the only thing that can save the economy. What a crock. Nobody seems to realize that the only stimulus the government can provide is directly taken out of the taxpayers' pockets. The government does not create wealth. It only shifts money around from one person to another. Besides national security matters, who is better at deciding how to spend money: private individuals spending their own money, or the government, spending other people's money?
The sheer absurdity of the "stimulus" mentality is staggering. It's just like people who say that the attacks will boost the economy because the affected companies will be forced to replace lost equipment and infrastructure. Of course, the economy will not benefit - replacing something that was destroyed is a drain on resources, not a positive thing. Those resources could have been devoted to other endeavours. Instead, we have to clean up this mess.
I hope people start seriously thinking about calls for more government power and influence, especially by the mooching traitors seeking to make a buck off the taxpayer by exploiting the feelings of patriotism (e.g., proposed $70 billion increased funding for Amtrak).

[mrsmith]

It's hard for me to believe the bad economic news is not caused by government imposed economic inefficiency, but by the destruction of two office buildings.

But I must believe the WashPost, and after all, government imposed economic inefficiency never makes the front page.

[untenured]

Recessions happen because unexpected events necessitate resource reallocation. The attacks have brought about all kinds of as-yet uncertain changes. We will travel less, the time it takes to fly will be greater because of more security, and so on. Businesses that used air travel extensively will use it less, and have to substitute other techniques in their production. More resources will be devoted to security in a wide variety of fields, at the expense of other activities. Etc.

Sorting out the new best use of resources after 9/11 will be a tangled and bumpy process. A recession (or aggravation of the already existing one) from this adjustment is highly probable. I'm not sure there's that much the government can or should do about it, other than to do its best to insure our safety from more of these attacks. The more quickly the adjustment to the new environment happens, the more quickly growth will resume.

IMHO, anyway.

[liberallarry]

Congress Gets Plea to Widen Economic Relief is a related piece from the New York Times.

[jwa3]

IMF....US economy in freefall, dollar overvalued. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1564000/1564612.stm

[justshutupandtakeit]

There are no quotes from University of Chicago economists so this article can safely be ignored. Though it is POSSIBLE that even non UC economists can't miss on this one.

[liberallarry]

IMF slashes forecast for world economic growth. Another related article, this time from the Financial Times (England).

[Benrand]

I'm sure Paul Krugman thinks so...but seriously, the lubrication that easy international passage gives markets is going to be affected. Inflation could be on the horizon. I wonder how this is affecting trade routes. We will always find ways to move product, but there will be some friction, IMO.

Plus, we're at war.