CptJake wrote:How many people die in a single day from food poisoning? How many buildings does food poisoning destroy in a typical day? What is the economic damage to the nation from that single day of food poisoning?


As anyone with a teeny bit of experience in risk management and mitigation will tell you, the magnitude of the outcome must be looked at along with the likelyhood.

It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

You know almost all budget funding got cut back last year?

Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.

Um.... 9/11 did it? Not the banks? see.... I may not be an econmic wizard.... but I'm failing to see the connection here.... Just how exactly did 9/11 throw us into recession?

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.

Um.... 9/11 did it? Not the banks? see.... I may not be an econmic wizard.... but I'm failing to see the connection here.... Just how exactly did 9/11 throw us into recession?

Evidently your memory doesn't go back very far.
The recession of 2002-2004.

CptJake wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

CptJake wrote:

But I'm glad you think those things don't really hurt us.

Are you dead from 9/11? Is your family? Your busdriver? Your dentist? Anyone you even know? 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack in modern history and a decade later none of it did anything to us except what we did to ourselves (2 invasions and the destruction of our ideals). The deaths? A rounding error in annual heart disease deaths, and I don't have to hear about that gak every day on the news. We didn't invade japan because toyota cars were involved in more deaths then terrorists in the worst year for terrorism in history.

This argument is bs. 9/11 was special because it's the sacred flower, not because it was numerically meaningful. In it's wake we lost more soldiers then died that day and we're no safer. We took all of the goodwill engendered and threw it in the trash.

Yeah, actually my wife and I lost a good budy in the pentagon that day. Thanks for trivializing it.

Yeah, actually my wife and I lost a good budy in the pentagon that day. Thanks for trivializing it.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Yup, 9/11 killed less people than die annually to food poisoning. However, it looked much scarier on TV than Ecoli filled cabbage.

Our governments reaction to Terrorsim is a change in the laws and build-up of military/para-military hardware.

Meanwhile, food inspectors have zero increases in funding and no new regulations around food safety. Enforcement remains a joke.

One is more likely to impact you than the other. It is all about balancing the needs with the outcomes.

9/11 dropped us into a recession and cost billions in direct costs alone. please reference a food poisoning outbreak that did that.

Um.... 9/11 did it? Not the banks? see.... I may not be an econmic wizard.... but I'm failing to see the connection here.... Just how exactly did 9/11 throw us into recession?

Evidently your memory doesn't go back very far.
The recession of 2002-2004.

No... thats not what i asked. I asked HOW did it throw us into recession, not when was the recession.

The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.

"The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession," said a statement from the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization.

Jihadin wrote:

The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.

"The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession," said a statement from the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/

The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates 10 times this year - three of those since Sept. 11 - in a bid to keep consumers spending and help lessen the severity of a downturn.

Home » Investing » Economic Impacts of 9/11 over the Past Decade
Brent graduated from UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business with an MBA and holds a BS in Political Science from the University of Utah.
Brent Pace
Economic Impacts of 9/11 over the Past Decade
Posted On: 09/14/11 8:09 AM | Written By: Brent Pace
Share this story
0
inShare
Get Financial Alerts

It can be difficult to get inside the mind of a terrorist and understand what would make someone commit these unspeakable violent acts. It has now been ten years since the September 11, 2001 attacks. When Osama bin Laden perpetrated the attacks, it became clear that he wanted to strike at the heart of America and cause fear to enter into the heart of every American. A secondary, and quite important goal, was to bankrupt America. Bankrupting America would come through all of the expenses America would incur protecting itself from terrorism.

If that was one of Osama bin Laden’s goals, the question is: did he succeed? What exactly has he cost us in economic terms? Clearly no measure or price can be put on the human lives lost. But we can attempt to quantify other monetary costs to America and see just how 9/11 has altered America’s economic course over the decade.

Defense Spending
The most obvious expenditure inspired by 9/11 was the increase in defense expenditures. In 2011 America is projected to spend about $708 billion on defense, which is approximately 4.8% of our gross domestic product. That budget means that America spends more on defense than the next seventeen biggest defense spenders combined. The $700+ billion in 2011 is comprised of a national defense budget of about $549 billion and a war supplemental budget of about $159 billion.

In 2001, America spent approximately $303 billion on defense with $13 billion in war supplemental spending. In the ten years since 9/11, our spending on defense has increased by approximately 124%, with a compound annual growth rate of approximately 8.4% per year. By any stretch, those are numbers that far outstrip inflation. The war supplemental spending alone since 2001 totals a staggering $1.19 trillion.

However, we can’t attribute all of the increase in spending simply to 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. As the cold war wound down in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, President Clinton and Congress drew back defense spending. Around 1998 the spending (adjusted for inflation) started to pick up again. Core national defense spending increased by 81% since 2001, for a compounded annual growth rate of 6.1%. That number is still well above inflation, but not ridiculous when you look back to 1990 when US defense spending was just over $400 billion as the cold war wound down.

Lost Productivity
Another major impact of 9/11 was the lost productivity. IAGS.org estimates that the cleanup, property damages, and infrastructure damages amounted to more than $15 billion. In addition, they estimate over $17 billion in lost wages, another $40 billion of insurance losses, $40 billion in federal emergency funds (including airport security increases), and $10 billion in losses in air traffic.

Despite the losses above, which are significant, at most they total $122 billion. America’s GDP in 2001 was around $10 trillion dollars. Although the attacks took an immense psychological toll on America, ultimately the productivity effects were mostly localized to New York City and Washington, D.C. In fact, the economy had positive GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2001 after negative growth in the previous quarter.

Stock Market Losses
The stock market experienced some wild fluctuations after September 11th. The day before the attacks the Dow Jones closed at 9,605.51. When the market re-opened a week later, it opened about 300 points off the previous close and continued a downward trend. By October 1st the Dow closed at 8,836.83. Then again, by the end of November, the Dow was back above 9,851. Although markets became more volatile, it was clear that investors did not view the long term health of the American economy as being impaired by the heinous acts of September 11th.

The Reality
Of the three factors considered above (defense spending, lost productivity, the stock market) only defense spending has both a clear correlation to and lasting impact from 9/11. However, even the defense spending increases since 9/11 might not be as dramatic as they seem when viewed in light of long term trends of 20 or more years. Certainly the overall impacts of 9/11 are in the trillions, but with an economy that boasts a GDP of over $15 trillion, the most hurtful of the impacts have been the immeasurable loss of human life and the psychological impacts of the attacks themselves.

Frazzled wrote:So in other words, you were'nt an adult then and don't really know what you're talking about. Gotcha.

Enron and the internet bubble had previously burst but the economy was teetering through. 4th Qtr GDP was hammered.

ShumaGorath wrote:Have you actually read that article..? It directly contradicts you Fraz.

Frazzled wrote:The article didn't state recession, it stated came of its high.

So you've affirmed you weren't an adult at the time and don't actually know what you're talking about. That coincides with the food poisoning nonsense.

Mr Hyena wrote:Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.

Melissia wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.

Gladly. Grief is no excuse for stupidity.

:edit: I just noticed that you're not American. Ummm... Crap. Replace all instance of the world America with england and make it slightly more sarcastic, but not much. Sun never sets, wot wot, cherrio.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.

Gladly. Grief is no excuse for stupidity.

So now we've reversed the situation, with the civilian's family being crippled with grief for the rest of their life, while the terrorist is off the hook.

How is this a victory?

Mr Hyena wrote:How is this a victory?

You're right. Bin Laden walked off into the sunset laughing the entire way, due to not having the provision allotted for in this bill, just most recently passed. If only we would have had it 10 years ago.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

But not everyone accused is guilty.

You act like everyone who gets stuffed in a concrete box-- denied any and all rights-- is guilty.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:Gonna tell that to the face of people of lost loved ones due to bombs? Its very easy to be against all this when you've never experienced or thought about how life-ending this is, not just for the people who died.

Gladly. Grief is no excuse for stupidity.

So now we've reversed the situation, with the civilian's family being crippled with grief for the rest of their life, while the terrorist is off the hook.

How is this a victory?

:edit: I just noticed that you're not American. Ummm... Crap. Replace all instance of the world America with england and make it slightly more sarcastic, but not much. Sun never sets, wot wot, cherrio.

Good move assuming I'm english.

There is no middle ground or room for policy that addresses both points!

Mr Hyena wrote:But nobody has put up a competent idea like that.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Of course. But not everyone is innocent.

Including those you would trust to employ such means?