COUNTER-TERRORISM: THE PRIVATE COST OF MORE SECURITY

Counter-Terrorism: The Private Cost of More Security



Counter-Terrorism: The Private Cost of More Security

1.Briefly state the main idea of this article

For the article given for the discussion, it puts forth a view of the discrepancies and problems that counter-terrorism has had on the impact of the economical standing of the country (Berner, 2007, 80). The article has covered the main areas of discussions towards economic progress of the country has makes significant identifications regarding the 11th September aftermath; whatever consequences the economy, the industries and the individual corporations faced on the bases of the pumping and waging of the entire federal budget that serves the economy thereof.

2. List Three Important Facts That the Author Uses To Support the Main Idea

For describing the actual work and representation and in an attempt of trying to understand exactly what does the author portray, there are three key factors that have been highlighted in the light of counter-terrorism comprehension.

First, the heads of major tycoons and market makers of their respective industries became severely reluctant and aloof of the idea to invest and input in the market since the entire US market had been greatly shook by the crisis that followed after September 11. All the major corporations either went bankrupt due to their insanity and unavailability of funds to back their liquidity and financial positions in the market; others took the notion of mergers and acquisition for the purpose of staying and surviving the market scene. Since the year 2001, according to many financers and project analysts, the US market has never been through such tremulous conditions that have caused dire conditions around the globe.

Second, the people and corporations that were a little less impacted in terms of risk exposure or being heavily affected by the pressures and decline of smooth economic progress. Generally, researchers, analysts, projectors and project financers witnessed that all the major firms, corporations or simply the market makers were taking the entire burden and responsibility that was meant to be equally sorted (Ibrahim, 2007, 276).

President Bush, the then president of the United States of America, put the view of this 'free rider' concept as severely restricted and classically acclaimed to a more reserved approach of concern and consideration. In his viewpoint and amongst the many steps undertaken regarding the credit crunch witnessed by many industries around the country, instead of implementing and applying rigid and strict rules and regulations that will help monitor the country's overall performance and financial standing, Bush suggested a more innate and 'patriotic' approach towards dealing with industrial and financial crunches. What he meant by the term used above was that if at any point time in time, if the firms were in distress, the major corporations who had a relatively better credit liquidity and standing in the market would innately and unanimously work together for the benefit, recovery and revival that shall help the entire market all over the state to come out and survive the ...