Either you waste your money on war material, or your money gets wasted by the enemy. What was the cost of those twin towers, again?
Or, as someone else said, "those who won't feed their own army will feed the enemy's".
Now that the US will spend 40? Billion; Effect on economy?
- (brettj)
- (10)
- Sept. 14, 2001, 01:44:28 AM EDT
Bad, especially in the long run.
- (Andrew Grygus)
- (3)
- Sept. 14, 2001, 02:01:34 AM EDT
Waste of money, yes. But the side effects.
- (marlowe)
- Sept. 14, 2001, 02:07:54 PM EDT
Two possibilities
- (Arkadiy)
- Sept. 24, 2001, 01:25:44 PM EDT
Not so complex, no more a waste than many other things
- (CRConrad)
- Sept. 26, 2001, 09:44:42 PM EDT
Re: Now that the US will spend 40? Billion; Effect on econom
- (gtall)
- (1)
- Sept. 14, 2001, 08:15:54 AM EDT
Multiplier effect, directed activity
- (kmself)
- Sept. 15, 2001, 04:58:14 PM EDT
Wars seem to always be good for an economy
- (wharris2)
- (2)
- Sept. 14, 2001, 12:12:34 PM EDT
Possibly not this time
- (tseliot)
- (1)
- Sept. 24, 2001, 12:50:08 PM EDT
That's your problem with never fighting your wars at home
- (CRConrad)
- Sept. 26, 2001, 09:44:24 PM EDT
Not good
- (JayMehaffey)
- Sept. 14, 2001, 12:26:28 PM EDT