<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">List,<br>
<br>
Chuck's comment refers to a "long term" positive effect on our
economy. Someone else referred to a positive effect on the
"regional" economy. Bloomberg used neither of these qualifiers.
This may seem like nit-picking (alright, I AM nit-picking), but
the difference between long term and short term, or regional and
national, can turn a true statement false or vice versa. I am
grateful for the existence of this thread, as it has given me the
opportunity to think about the economy in new ways. I won't
burden you with my opinion on the Bloomberg piece. But the next
time some pundit or politician says that something will "help the
economy", ask yourself which economy he's talking about, and
whether the effect will be long term or transient.<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
On 11/26/2012 10:07 PM, Steve Brooks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50B43C64.1070606@sprynet.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Chuck's got it right. If Bloomberg's writers think hurricane Sandy
will have a net positive effect on the economy, and I haven't read
their analysis and do not assume that they do, then they are
pig-ignorant about economics.<br>
<br>
Many people make the mistake of focusing on only what is seen
while remaining blind to that which is not seen. In this case,
what is seen is the work being done to repair the damage from the
storm. What is not seen is where the money spent to repair the
damage would have gone instead. In the end the world is net short
all of the resources, assets and value of that which was
destroyed. Money that would have been spent elsewhere must now be
used to repair damage and replace lost assets. (By the way, GDP is
a poor measure of economic benefit. It is merely an accounting
identity. While it may account for the increased activity
resulting from storm or war, it does not account for the losses
due to those events.)<br>
<br>
There is a wonderful book out there - "Economics in One Lesson" by
Henry Hazlitt. I recommend it to every entry level student in
economics and to friends in general. In Chapter II he writes of
the "Broken window fallacy." It is quoted here - <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm">http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm</a>
in it is contained a clear explanation relevant to this
discussion.<br>
<br>
I seldom comment on this list because I am a hobby piano tuner and
have little to add to the discussion. Every now and then I do
comment on things that are usually off topic. I am a professional
economist, now retired, tinkering with my piano. Hazlitt puts this
fallacy to rest in three paragraphs. The rest of this tiny volume
contains chapters equally as pithy and revealing. I keep a small
cache of copies and give them away as gifts. I hope everyone on
this list reads it. If they did, the members of this organization
would have more economic knowledge than the majority of financial
reporters regardless where they are employed.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/26/2012 8:44 PM, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:pianotech-request@ptg.org">pianotech-request@ptg.org</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.4052.1353984275.4133.pianotech@ptg.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">It
seems to me that if Sandy or Katrina will have a long
term positive net effect on the regional economy, then
we should encourage vandalism and arson because it would
do essentially the same thing.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt">Chuck</span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>