Liberal moron Thom Hartmann: Natural disasters are the ultimate for GDP growth.

[Max E.]

Why not nuke all of New Jersey instead next time so we can really get some GDP growth. This is what constitutes intelligent thinking from the party of mensa members.


And the other irony, Don, is the ultimate job creation. You know, one of the things that does jack up GDP is disasters. You know, when Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey, it radically increased GDP of New Jersey. I mean, it wiped out people's lives and all that kinda stuff, but rebuilding from disasters, the Gulf Coast rebuilding from the blowout in the Macondo well, all these things actually stimulate GDP. And as Bobby Kennedy pointed out, it's a terrible way to stimulate GDP. Instead, what we should be doing is we should be putting solar panels on the roof of every house and every community that's got enough wind should have their own, you know, wind farm going and, you know, we need to electrify our automobile fleet.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-c...sters-are-ultimate-job-creators#ixzz2zwg5p8bU

 

[Lucrum]

I just noticed this a little while ago and nearly posted it myself. I had to read the title twice to make sure I wasn't missing something.

What a bunch of morons.

 

[Max E.]

I just noticed this a little while ago and nearly posted it myself. I had to read the title twice to make sure I wasn't missing something.

What a bunch of morons.

Yeah according to them if you want to grow an economy you are better off destroying a business than running one.

 

[futurecurrents]

But moron, it is true isn't it?

Did he say it was a GOOD way? Of course not. You are a typical right wing idiot. Not a bit of brain matter. You are able to read far right wing bullshit though huh? Get a clue.

 

[Ricter]

But moron, it is true isn't it?

Did he say it was a GOOD way? Of course not. You are a typical right wing idiot. Not a bit of brain matter. You are able to read far right wing bullshit though huh? Get a clue.

Just another Max Shriek^{[size=-2]TM[/size]}.

 

[Max E.]

But moron, it is true isn't it?

No, its not true at all, and the way he stated it is even dumber than most. Based on his logic if you want GDP growth, you are better off destroying a business than running it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/gG3AKoL0vEs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[TGregg]

It's only been known since 1850 so it is not a surprise that the libtards haven't learned it yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

 

[Ricter]

No, its not true at all, and the way he stated it is even dumber than most. Based on his logic if you want GDP growth, you are better off destroying a business than running it.

You may be right that he stated his case poorly. But GDP is a quantitative measure, that has always been its weakness. It is easy to imagine scenarios where rebuilding a business, in a year, has higher total transaction costs than that business's yearly gross sales. Factoring in a multiplier, if you believe in the multiplier, changes nothing since it applies to both kinds of economic activity. But none of this takes into account any of the qualitative measures, and that is GDP's shortcoming.

“‎'If a man walks in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer; but if he spends his whole day as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making earth bald before her time, he is esteemed an industrious and enterprising citizen. As if a town had no interest in its forests but to cut them down!”

― Henry David Thoreau, Life Without Principle

 

[futurecurrents]

No, its not true at all, and the way he stated it is even dumber than most. Based on his logic if you want GDP growth, you are better off destroying a business than running it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/gG3AKoL0vEs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hmmmm, interesting video. I suspect it depends on the nature of the destruction. I do know that Sandy brought a lot of money into the area afterward. Contractors of all kinds did very well. I was one of them. The losers were the insurance companies. But I suppose then the insurance companies will charge more which will then be a drag on the economy.

, some economists argue that despite the widespread destruction they leave behind, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions and ice storms can spur economic growth.

Rebuilding efforts provide a short-term boost by attracting resources to the region, economists say. By destroying old factories and roads, airports and bridges, the disasters allow new and more efficient infrastructure to be built, forcing the transition to a sleeker, more productive economy in the long term.

"When something is destroyed you don't necessarily rebuild the same thing that you had," said Mark Skidmore, an economics professor at Michigan State University. "You might use updated technology, you might do things more efficiently."

Studies have found that earthquakes in California and Alaska helped spur economic activity there, and that countries with more hurricanes and storms tend to see higher rates of growth. Some of the most recent studies have found a link between disasters and subsequent innovation.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/b...8iht-disasters.4.14335899.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Ricter]

Hmmmm, interesting video. I suspect it depends on the nature of the destruction. I do know that Sandy brought a lot of money into the area afterward. Contractors of all kinds did very well. I was one of them. The losers were the insurance companies. But I suppose then the insurance companies will charge more which will then be a drag on the economy.

, some economists argue that despite the widespread destruction they leave behind, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions and ice storms can spur economic growth.

Rebuilding efforts provide a short-term boost by attracting resources to the region, economists say. By destroying old factories and roads, airports and bridges, the disasters allow new and more efficient infrastructure to be built, forcing the transition to a sleeker, more productive economy in the long term.

"When something is destroyed you don't necessarily rebuild the same thing that you had," said Mark Skidmore, an economics professor at Michigan State University. "You might use updated technology, you might do things more efficiently."

Studies have found that earthquakes in California and Alaska helped spur economic activity there, and that countries with more hurricanes and storms tend to see higher rates of growth. Some of the most recent studies have found a link between disasters and subsequent innovation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/b...8iht-disasters.4.14335899.html?pagewanted=all

Of course one has to consider the cost of capital at the time and place in question. Rebuilding efficient, best practice business during full capacity when capital is relatively expensive, means that you are not going to achieve a productivity improvement with your borrowing. The disaster has indeed "crowded out" more economic activity than it has created. But, the world is awash in idle resources right now, capital and labor, so I don't think it's a concern, in a quantitative sense only. On the other hand, there is the use of finite, natural resources...