General Discussion

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)

2. "I am not an economist in the slightest"

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 03:27 AM

Nov 2012

Good. You are one step closer to getting it.

Basically, only if the work done to repair outweighs the loss of work the region was capable of (over some time), then it would be a boon. Every disaster is different, but I would suggest that any that damage the most amount of personal properties with the least amount of infrastructure damage would have the best chance of coming up on top (commerce is then disrupted the least and the most amount of people are able to contribute to production via insurance disburstments). Sandy seems to have dismantled everything.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

is Sandy good for the economy? [View all] trailmonkee Nov 2012 OP

No, she's a 'net' drag, as are all such disasters. elleng Nov 2012 #1

What existing jobs are (permanently) lost? Iggy Nov 2012 #5

"I am not an economist in the slightest" NoOneMan Nov 2012 #2

Well, there's a few ways to approach it. Scootaloo Nov 2012 #3

Nah. Other comments have the right idea... TreasonousBastard Nov 2012 #4

By that rationale, we should all go out and vandalize something. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #6

This is the "broken window" fallacy. baldguy Nov 2012 #7

Thank you for clarifying that. Prometheus Bound Nov 2012 #8

thanks trailmonkee Nov 2012 #11

I say, sadly yes it is good for the economy. Festivito Nov 2012 #9

I don't subscribe to the economic theories of Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg MrScorpio Nov 2012 #10

thanks trailmonkee Nov 2012 #12