• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

What would the U.S economy be like..

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Just curious what you think.

------------------------------------------------
It would have been nice for your insight to be included


Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy


 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,247
2
0
Well, what do you think Aimster. I'm sure you have an idea since you started this thread. Would be interesting how the world economy would have played out without the oil fears due to the US taste for blood.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,908
44
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Aimster
Topic Title: What would the U.S economy be like..
Topic Summary: had we not invaded Iraq?

Just curious what you think.
Corporations would not have the power they do now.

The middle class would still be strong as the country would.

The towers would be standing once again proudly like two middle fingers in the sky.

We've lost, by design, by your buds. Congrats.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
The towers would be standing once again proudly like two middle fingers in the sky.
I'd like to know how that is possible given that they fell before Iraq, unless you're referring to reconstruction.

Anyway, the economy would be in much better shape, I'm sure with a brighter future. National debt would be a couple trillion less, at least, and oil wouldn't be at $112/barrel. Iraq has been bad in every way.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,943
1
0
With Bush running the show, I'm sure we would have found a way to squander the money anyway.

We SHOULD use it to pay down the debt, etc.
 

Rustican

Member
Feb 7, 2005
120
0
76
I would think the housing mortgage meltdown would still occur which is one of the biggest factors to the slowing economy.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Impossible to tell really, there are simply too many variables involved.

 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,431
82
91
I know federal money for state DOT's has dried up. This has caused the cancellation and delay in quite a few road projects in Tennessee at least. Just a drop in the bucket but look at all other areas that rely on federal funds and that have had budgets slashed. But interest rates still would have gone up causing a real estate crisis, illegals would still depress wages, Gas prices would still be higher than we would like, food costs would still rise because everyone is loving ethanol. So there would still be some type of strain on the economy.

Of course if your in the ammo making industry... you can now retire a multi-billionaire.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,085
493
126
Hard to say. It would probably have performed better(though it performed quite well anyways). One thing i think we can say is oil prices would be lower. Though I dont know by how much. As much as the raw dollar amount of the war costs. Its % of our economy is very small.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
Oil prices would have been dramatically lower; we've almost had a 4x increase since 2003 when we invaded.

Reduced oil prices alone would have been enough to keep our economy going strong. It's just a fact of living in a petroleum driven society.
 

fallenangel99

Golden Member
Aug 8, 2001
1,721
1
0
The same I think.

The trillions or billions or whatever we have spent in Iraq would have been used elsewhere.. not on poverty or economy or jobs

Shouldnt oil be cheaper now that we control the oil there?
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,120
171
106
Everyone would be holding hands in global unity. Hunger would be gone and all disease would be cured.

Now that the sarcasm is gone...

-oil would still be high because we weren't getting oil from Iraq before and we aren't getting any oil from Iraq now
-China and India would still be growing and increasing demand for food and oil, so food prices would still be high
-the housing "crises" would still have occurred, Iraq had nothing to do with people over stretching themselves on housing
-the biggest difference would be that the dollar would be a bit stronger, so gas wouldn't be quite so high and our debt wouldn't be quite so high
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: KB
Everyone would be holding hands in global unity. Hunger would be gone and all disease would be cured.

Now that the sarcasm is gone...

-oil would still be high because we weren't getting oil from Iraq before and we aren't getting any oil from Iraq now
-China and India would still be growing and increasing demand for food and oil, so food prices would still be high
-the housing "crises" would still have occurred, Iraq had nothing to do with people over stretching themselves on housing
-the biggest difference would be that the dollar would be a bit stronger, so gas wouldn't be quite so high and our debt wouldn't be quite so high
I agree with everything except the first statement, we are getting oil from Iraq and we were before the invasion, just not directly. In the same sense that we don't get oil directly from Saudi Arabia.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I agree that the economy would be undeniably better. The question is how to quantify that in some valid way.
And the other unknown, if GWB the irrational had not invaded Iraq, would have GWB the irrational invaded Iran
instead? But like all other fork in the road questions, its hard to guess what would have been the end outcome of
taking the road we did not choose.

But without some solid economic analysis, its really hard to even touch the quantification side of the question. The
real fact is that the US economy can't be sustained on a negative balance of trade. And that went South between the cusp of Carter to Reagan and has been going down ever since.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Oil prices would have been dramatically lower; we've almost had a 4x increase since 2003 when we invaded.

Reduced oil prices alone would have been enough to keep our economy going strong. It's just a fact of living in a petroleum driven society.
That's impossible to point directly to Iraq. Oil prices have gone up because the dollar has declined due to our economy being sideways right now and speculation, neither of which are directly related to Iraq.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
Originally posted by: KB

-oil would still be high because we weren't getting oil from Iraq before and we aren't getting any oil from Iraq now
Oil is high for three reasons: 1) Weak dollar, 2) Increased demand, 3) global instability. It doesn't matter that the US doesn't get tons from Iraq, it's the instability that is into the market price right now and it's substantial. Increased demand, weak dollar cannot account for a quadrupling of oil costs in the last several years.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,435
79
91
Probably about the same; because if we hadn't of gone into Iraq, we sure would have gone into Iran by now.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Oil prices would have been dramatically lower; we've almost had a 4x increase since 2003 when we invaded.

Reduced oil prices alone would have been enough to keep our economy going strong. It's just a fact of living in a petroleum driven society.
That's impossible to point directly to Iraq. Oil prices have gone up because the dollar has declined due to our economy being sideways right now and speculation, neither of which are directly related to Iraq.
Who to believe? LK, or a Nobel prize-winning economist/Ivy league professor?

Tough choice.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Oil prices would have been dramatically lower; we've almost had a 4x increase since 2003 when we invaded.

Reduced oil prices alone would have been enough to keep our economy going strong. It's just a fact of living in a petroleum driven society.
That's impossible to point directly to Iraq. Oil prices have gone up because the dollar has declined due to our economy being sideways right now and speculation, neither of which are directly related to Iraq.
Who to believe? LK, or a Nobel prize-winning economist/Ivy league professor?

Tough choice.
In any case, the dollar has in part declined because of the gross debt of the US, which has been exacerbated by Iraq. There are just no positives to the war from an economic front.

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Oil prices would have been dramatically lower; we've almost had a 4x increase since 2003 when we invaded.

Reduced oil prices alone would have been enough to keep our economy going strong. It's just a fact of living in a petroleum driven society.
That's impossible to point directly to Iraq. Oil prices have gone up because the dollar has declined due to our economy being sideways right now and speculation, neither of which are directly related to Iraq.
Who to believe? LK, or a Nobel prize-winning economist/Ivy league professor?

Tough choice.
LOL, typical bullshit response. Black/Scholes were also nobel winners, but they got it wrong with LTCM didn't they? Got any thoughts of your own to refute that? I bet you think everything you read in a book is true and they are always infallable, right?

How does the Iraq war translate into oil increases? The price of oil has only gone up marginally worldwide.

If I were to go by your idiotic logic, I'd merely say that you could never disagree with me and be correct, since I know far more than you and have the educational and professional backup. What do you have sparky? Do you even work in finance? Do you work in i-banking? Do you have an MBA or a CFA charter?

if not, then STFU. (by your own "logic")
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Oil prices would have been dramatically lower; we've almost had a 4x increase since 2003 when we invaded.

Reduced oil prices alone would have been enough to keep our economy going strong. It's just a fact of living in a petroleum driven society.
That's impossible to point directly to Iraq. Oil prices have gone up because the dollar has declined due to our economy being sideways right now and speculation, neither of which are directly related to Iraq.
Who to believe? LK, or a Nobel prize-winning economist/Ivy league professor?

Tough choice.
In any case, the dollar has in part declined because of the gross debt of the US, which has been exacerbated by Iraq. There are just no positives to the war from an economic front.
I would agree to that, but it's not as strong of a correlation as many would have you believe.

Lets not forget that added debt doesn't matter nearly as much as reduced interest in investment due to reduced rates from the housing issues.

The input of one variable into the regression of this economy, from iraq, is very small compared to the multitude of other issues facing it. To say that the economy would be far different just because oil and Iraq's marginal influence upon it is intellectually dishonest.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Oil prices would have been dramatically lower; we've almost had a 4x increase since 2003 when we invaded.

Reduced oil prices alone would have been enough to keep our economy going strong. It's just a fact of living in a petroleum driven society.
That's impossible to point directly to Iraq. Oil prices have gone up because the dollar has declined due to our economy being sideways right now and speculation, neither of which are directly related to Iraq.
Who to believe? LK, or a Nobel prize-winning economist/Ivy league professor?

Tough choice.
LOL, typical bullshit response. Black/Scholes were also nobel winners, but they got it wrong with LTCM didn't they? Got any thoughts of your own to refute that? I bet you think everything you read in a book is true and they are always infallable, right?

How does the Iraq war translate into oil increases? The price of oil has only gone up marginally worldwide.
There is a lot of information out there, and we have to use critical reasoning to filter our sources.

Have you been published anywhere? Are you a leader in your field? How many hours have you researched the subject? Enough to write a published book about it? Have you won any international accolades? Are you employed by one of the top universities worldwide?

What are your accomplishments besides making an average of 2 anonymous forum posts per day, and why should I choose to listen to your opinion above the aforementioned one?

Thanks in advance.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,739
4,602
126
Better infrastructure, hopefully more funding for scholarships and healthcare, and lower deficits.
But let's face it, we haven't paid the full price for Iraq yet, the worst is yet to come.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Oil prices would have been dramatically lower; we've almost had a 4x increase since 2003 when we invaded.

Reduced oil prices alone would have been enough to keep our economy going strong. It's just a fact of living in a petroleum driven society.
That's impossible to point directly to Iraq. Oil prices have gone up because the dollar has declined due to our economy being sideways right now and speculation, neither of which are directly related to Iraq.
Who to believe? LK, or a Nobel prize-winning economist/Ivy league professor?

Tough choice.
LOL, typical bullshit response. Black/Scholes were also nobel winners, but they got it wrong with LTCM didn't they? Got any thoughts of your own to refute that? I bet you think everything you read in a book is true and they are always infallable, right?

How does the Iraq war translate into oil increases? The price of oil has only gone up marginally worldwide.
There is a lot of information out there, and we have to use critical reasoning to filter our sources.

Have you been published anywhere? Are you a leader in your field? How many hours have you researched the subject? Enough to write a published book about it? Have you won any international accolades? Are you employed by one of the top universities worldwide?

What are your accomplishments besides making an average of 2 anonymous forum posts per day, and why should I choose to listen to your opinion above the aforementioned one?

Thanks in advance.
LOL, no, you have to be critical since your a fucking braindead moron who can't do anything but fall back on a book because you have no real knowledge of your own.

Let me quote something for you.

Will: Of course that's your contention. You're a first-year grad student; you just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'till next month when you get to James Lemon. Then you're going to be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year; you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

Clark: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social -

Will: "Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth"? You got that from Vickers' "Work in Essex County," page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?

Clark: [looks down in shame]

Will: See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a f***in' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!

I am published, while working for the President of my university (recommended by the dean of the business school), after which I worked for him to study the financial allocations of state educational resources with McKinsey & CO. I then followed by working for 2 Fortune 50 companies in treasury, both being recognized at the top. I passed all 3 levels of the CFA exams on the first try (something less than 10% do). I now work for one of the largest banks in the world, as a leader in my team and I am not even 30.


I don't need to quote books, I don't need to write them, nor be an academic employed by a university. I know a shit-ton more than you and it's proven by your inability to counter my arguments. You're pathetically equipped to debate with me since all you can do is quote and dodge.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: senseamp
Better infrastructure, hopefully more funding for scholarships and healthcare, and lower deficits.
But let's face it, we haven't paid the full price for Iraq yet, the worst is yet to come.
Now that's something we can agree on.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY