What would a terrorist attack do to the bond markets?

In light of Adm. Mullen's suggestion that we could see a terrorist attack during the Presidential transition period, I wonder what the reaction would be to US bond markets..

Conventional wisdom says that they would skyrocket in price (crash in yield)....Any other thoughts???

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/06/inside-the-ring-20169387/

 

Regarding the timing, I think it will take a year or two for the bad guys to reconstitute and get a plan going. Old George has been kicking their asses something awful lately (notice we invaded 2 additional countries this month?).

I say the attack comes about 18-24 months after the U.S. Military is withdrawn from Iraq.

 

It will take years to get out of Iraq though..
and I wonder what Iraq has to do with a potential terrorist attack...?
President Godzilla has sure been stomping on the rest of the world, including bankrupting the oil rich, chest thumping countries of the world (Iran, Venezuela, Russia)

 

Under his watchful eye, oil went from $20-30 a barrel to $60 a barrel. Not quite bankrupting.

 

Please list other commodities that haven't ALSO doubled in price.

 

1) ?......??.....!......Lumber!
2) Western Canada could be invaded before the end of his term in order to give a boost to that market!

 

The only way to get the troops out of other nations and bring them (mostly) home is for someone to nuke the USA. Even then, it will take weeks of emergency transportation to do it.

To answer the OP, a nuclear attack would shut off American market trading indefinitely.

 

Good afternoon Kurt, thanks for responding to me.

As far as the commodity price rise goes, that's not the point I'm arguing. All commodity producers enjoyed a boom over the past eight years.

The United States and the European Union are not predominantly commodity producers. We sell goods and services. Most of our commodity production (as a percentage of GDP) is set for internal use.

On the other hand, our sworn enemies who are commodity producers, and commodity producers only, saw the relative value of their product increase several fold.
They can use the additional revenue to purchase some other commodities, or, more likely, they'll use the revenue to predominantly purchase non-commodity goods and services, which have not risen in value in a measure consistent with oil, or natural gas.

 

Glad to respond. I'll make a quick macro comment.. An oil producer has as much market right to see his product rise in price as does the owner of a Los Angeles home or a footballers paycheck. In the 70's it was called parity. Market economies for too long under rewarded the farmer and over rewarded the advertising exec. Now a shift is taking place. In many ways I felt there was a certain social justice quality to Bush economic policy. The allocation of market rewards crosses idealogical boundaries. I reject language that says we're supporting "enemies" with this trade agenda or that. It all evens out. A Venezuelan has a right to survival whether I approve of Chavez or not.

 

Excellent post and point. I agree with you. The term "sworn enemy" was sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek. It's difficult to convey sarcasm over the internet. My original response to

was to affirm the opposite. Unless I have fallen prey to PohPoh's sarcasm myself, if his above comment was sarcastic. Gosh, now this is starting to go in circles!

Take care,
MC