I agree with all that. But then you aren't really talking econometrics, and rather technical analysis - which really has no econometric basis.
One thing about this war that is different from all previous wars - the industrial (or service) areas that will benefit are vastly different.
This war will require medical investment (vaccines, research, general preventive maintenance), security investment (improved policing of air/sea/land lines), and surveillance (pursuit of suspected criminals).
Other than that, the longer term benefits for the areas you mentioned won't occur for some time - either until we need to provide depleted stocks for continued conflict, or we need to rebuild stocks for future conflict.
BTW, war has never been "good" for the economy. The US is lucky that war has just never been fought on its soil. As a result, we have often acted as the major supplier of war goods. That IS good for the economy, short term. It is bad in the long run because it is misplaced investment (unless a war is endless) and creates a deadweight loss on the economy.
Since this war has been brought to US soil...it is POSSIBLE (but really quite unlikely) that this war could hurt the US. To really hurt the economy, several factors (that I'd rather not mention since it may stoke ideas...and I'm sure the terrorists have plenty of their own) would have to be attacked. For a disparate and clearly not very intelligent group of people that the al-Qaeda has stationed over here...a well coordinated attack that could do serious damage is a very remote likelihood.
When you consider the Taliban are currently raiding Red Crescent relief warehouses for food...it's apparent they are running short of time and supplies. They may be fierce. They may be willing to die. But, as the Japanese experience shows...this a formidable foe does not make. |
