In the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry suggested that our goal in fightin
ID: 1190959 • Letter: I
Question
In the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry suggested that our goal in fighting terrorism was to return to a situation in which "terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." The George W. Bush campaign responded with outrage, stating that only complete elimination of terrorism was acceptable. Which side better captures the economic principle that “governments can sometimes improve market outcomes”? Why –? (you get most points for carefully explaining your logic, not just stating which side was right)
Explanation / Answer
Terrorists are actually parts of the economy , As adolf hitler said that 'Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing derives people harder than a fear of sudden death'.
Whatever terrorism is but it is nothing more than a nuisance. There are many factors due to which terrorism arise like deprivation, a desire to avenge the death of a loved one, a response to “acts of discrimination or repression,” the desire to belong to a group, and “rebellion against anonymity. and to defeat the terrorism we need government, as govt sometimes increases market outcomes. There may be a role for government to intervene when the market place does not provide a socially desirable outcome.As we know that imperfect and inefficient allocation of the resources leads to the government failure, So terrorism through economic perspective is just a nuissance and for better and efficient results and to avoid the govt. failure we have to understand terrorism first . But eliminating terrorism completely without knowing the actual fact behind it is not fair and might leads to inefficient allocation of resources.
so i am on john kerry side