<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">I think that the people writing that article are guilty of some sloppy thinking. Part of <br> the trouble stems from how "GDP" is counted. Anything that gets paid for is considered to <br> be part of the Gross Domestic Product. That doesn't mean that everything counted is equally <br> of value. The lost airplane flights and restaurant meals were just consumption, non-productive.<br> <br> If destruction were all that was needed to "stimulate the economy", then all we have to do <br> is get people out of harm's way and send the Air Force to bomb our cities to the ground. We'd <br> all be rich for years ... <br> <br> This "we'll all be rich from rebuilding" is an example of something called the "Broken <br> Window Fallacy." All the money that workmen and emergency crews and home supply stores are <br> earning HAS COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. It comes from insurance companies who will have to <br> raise their premiums so we all pay more for insurance. It might well put some of them out <br> of business. If such storms are more and more frequent, insurance will be difficult to find <br> at all, let alone afford. <br> <br> If it is paid for by government emergency funds, then it gets added to our deficit. That <br> deficit will make us pay more in interest to keep it rolling along, and if we have other <br> needs (like food inspection, education, the NIH, the court system, food stamps for the unemployed, <br> and roads and bridges) they will have to go short or be postponed. <br> <br> If the cost of rebuilding is borne by the people whose houses were destroyed, then the <br> money will come from their savings. This money (if they were in the black) will not be <br> available for investing in industry or businesses. They will not have the income from <br> this money to spend on other things. If they were in debt already, this could bring a lot <br> of them into bankruptcy. Then their creditors lose. <br> <br> The money for rebuilding has to come from somewhere, and the only kind of rebuilding <br> which makes sense is "hardened" against future storms. There could be some efficiency gained <br> by intelligent rebuilding, but it will all have to be paid for. <br> <br> Money spent on wallboard, wiring, and plumbing is unlikely to be spent on piano tuning -- <br> even if they still have a working piano. <br> <br> A lot of the damage, especially to vulnerable low-lying areas in New Jersey, will <br> probably never be rebuilt to what it was before the storm. The people who lost their <br> homes will of course be looking for other homes to buy or rental accommodations. It <br> will keep realtors busy. But for those who lost homes, their net worth will be less <br> than before, not more, even if they were covered by insurance. Many weren't. And <br> city budgets will be strained to the breaking point even if they get federal aid. <br> <br> Just my opinion, and I'm extremely glad that it wasn't my area which was ruined. <br> Oregon may have a severe earthquake just off the coast (we're overdue for a big one), <br> and there might be a Japan-style tsunami from it. Even if the water is unlikely <br> to reach as far inland as I live, coastal towns and parts of Portland could be <br> devastated. If the middle of the country continues to have terrible droughts, <br> tornadoes, and floods, the Gulf continues to have hurricanes, and now the East <br> Coast is vulnerable more and more often -- well, we have to adjust as well as <br> we can, but we all will be poorer, not richer. <br> <br> Susan<br> <br> <br> </font><br> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tnrwim@aol.com">tnrwim@aol.com</a> wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:8CF9978DE53B5CC-2A0-14FBE@webmail-m054.sysops.aol.com" type="cite"><font color="black" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> <div><font style="background-color: transparent;">Right after Sandy hit, I made the comment that the storm might be the shot in the arm this country needs to get out of the economic doldrums.  What I meant by the comment was that while we are not necessarily going to see a direct impact on piano tuning and repairing, although we will get some of that. But more importantly we are going to see the "ripple" effect of the total economic impact.  Construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc, are going to make more money. They will, in turn buy new cars and appliances. Those sales people will go out to dinner more often. Etc. Etc. All along the way, more people will have more money to spend on goods and services that are near and dear to them that will directly effect us, everywhere from getting the piano tuned more often to actually buying a new piano. It might take a couple of months, or even years, but we are in for a good couple of years. Even I will feel that impact as people will earn enough money to take a much needed vacation to Hawaii, where they will go out to dinner, and leave a big tip for one of my customers. </font></div> <div> </div> <div><font style="background-color: transparent;">For a more detailed explanation of the effects of Sandy, read the following article in Bloomberg News.  </font></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><font style="background-color: transparent;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-23/sandy-seen-boosting-u-s-with-as-much-as-240-billion-rebuilding.html">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-23/sandy-seen-boosting-u-s-with-as-much-as-240-billion-rebuilding.html</a></font></div> <div style="clear: both;"> <div> </div> <div>Wim</div> </div> </font> </blockquote> </body> </html>