Formerly About Applied Materials Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials

AMAT 261.90

+0.4%

Dec 26 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: michael97123 who wrote (59685)	1/30/2002 11:27:13 AM
From: runes	Read Replies (2) of 70976

Michael - war effects - Historically, wars are good for the economy. They require increased spending to fuel the war machine which increases the employment. All of this is done through deficit spending. Of course this tends to lead to a post-war hangover as the defense industry ramps back down and the budget deficit comes due. (Deficit spending = sell more bonds = higher interest rates = less money in the stock market) In this case though, we are talking about a limited war. So there should be much less impact on the economy as a whole. Unfortunately, it sure seems to be going after the budget in a big way. Sadly, the government seems to have decided to take responsibility for businesses losses as a result of 911. (Major gripe #1 - the more business money that goes to political parties, the more handouts they are getting. God forbid that business should be responsible for their own risk management!). The good news for tech is that the "war" spending and the "security" spending is definitely tech focused. Smart bombs, electronic surveillance, chemical sensors, facial recognition, forensic accounting. All high tech, all needs chips. AMAT will get a trickledown effect via the semis. (Major gripe #2 - 90% of security spending is wasted money. At best it causes the terrorist to change their targets in a target rich environment). PS - Major gripe #3 - Bush is pushing the security threat and the global terror "war" because it suits his political agenda. It already propelled him from a flagging Presidency into a strong leadership role. IMO - he wants to turn the "war" into his legacy. I fear that this will turn into another drug war - a lot of money spent, a lot of "victories" but no meaningful improvement in our security. (Apologies to the board for the political rambling but I have a nasty feeling about where we are being led)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next