Is it just a myth that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks badly damaged the American economy? According to columnist Thomas Fricke of the Financial Times Deutschland, the wars of vengeance launched by George W. Bush and the nearly catastrophic economic crash at the end of his term caused far more damage than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed of.`
The conjecture has persisted since the initial hours after the terror attack: Terror plunged the American economy into recession. And by the way: The whole mess over massive government debt essentially began after September 11th. Because the Federal Reserve panicked and lowered interest rates, thus encouraging people go into debt. So they say.
It almost sounds reasonable. But it cannot be properly demonstrated. On the contrary. Rather, ten years later, the suspicion imposes itself that September 11th left neither a direct nor indirect mark on the U.S. or world economy. If anything, George W. Bush, who was president at the time, made sure of that with his wars of retribution – although even that wasn’t nearly as expensive as the financial crisis of 2007.
Was Osama bin Laden responsible for the recession and housing bubbles? That is rather a legend. But it’s no myth how the U.S. government reacted to the terror attacks: With two wars, which according to the administration at the time were supposed to finance themselves, but which so far have cost between $1 and 5 trillion, according to Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz.
America’s future is more severely shaken when the employees of a crashing investment bank cross Wall Street than when aircraft zoom into skyscrapers and kill 3000 people. It’s an absurd world
READ ON IN ENGLISH OR GERMAN AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US