Apr

6

 There's been much hand-wringing since the Great Recession to explain not only why the US economy hasn't grown faster but why the global economy is in such a morose state. Explanations include the overhang of personal/government/corporate (take your pick) debt, demography/aging of the population, central bank interference, among others.

Carder and I had a discussion today about this subject. Somehow, the topic of 9/11 came up, and he noted that we've spent a small fortune in responding to the security issues presented by that event. There have now been a number of other terrorist attacks in Europe, and I expect that there has been a considerable amount of money spent in shoring up security there, too.

I therefore wonder if the two aren't connected. First, the amount that was spent on security infrastructure and operations was not available for investment or any other economic use. Second, that the tightening/less open state of Western society in the hopes of creating a sense of security (in the pursuit of zero incidents) has created enough impediments to wealth creation in itself that the performance of Western economies has been rendered sluggish. To rephrase, that the West has, in its search for security, reduced the openness of the society that created the wealth which placed a target on the West in the first place.

If that hypothesis were correct, then the terrorists will have succeeded in at least some of their aims without having exploded yet another bomb.

I'm sure there are those who disagree with that hypothesis, likely including many on this list. I put the idea out here for discussion.

Nigel Davies writes: 

Yes, as Nimzovitsch pointed out, the threat is stronger than the execution. Much of chess mastery consists of the correct gauging of 'threats', defending by minimal means and keeping every part of your position equally weak (Lasker). The problem is that in a democracy the clamor for resources will not be based on this kind of logic but rather than influence over the electorate per unit cost.

Peter Grieve writes: 

Excellent point. Imagine a chess game where millions of people vote to decide the next move, and subgroups receive a different share of the winnings depending on which pieces are left on the board at the end. Laskerian principles might be hard to maintain in this case.

Not a perfect analogy, of course, but I think it hits Nigel's idea.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

1 Comment so far

  1. Stefan Cheplick on April 6, 2016 5:12 pm

    Spending aside. Strategy aside. Psychological and emotionally – the toll it must take. Extreme fear perpetuated through the media, especially. The devastating narrative it all paints over time. An emotional drain that potentially impacts family, work, productivity, and above all happiness. Your thoughts are truly provoking and suddenly it seems you are on to something.

Archives

Resources & Links

Search