[ennui2]

ennui2, expecting it? Fuck buddy they been doing it for years. You really should read "The Shock Doctrine" for an introduction of how they do this. See how they cashed in on Katrina.

Next you'll be talking about HAARP generating those storms. Take off the tinfoil hat.

There's also the insurance industry which makes money off of bad things NOT happening. Not all capitalism is oriented around making money off of misery.

If you chase money, you'll always find people making money. That by itself has no meaning. We're talking about a natural disaster, not looking for boogeymen or illuminaughties. The thread had nothing to do with politics by itself.

[GHung]

Ya, ennui, I guess you can't see that there's a metaphor here for how we, modern humans, do everything. Our entire economy is based on profit from destroying things. I know,, most will say we're really just rearranging nature in better ways to suit our needs and wants, but in reality, it's destruction of things for our short-term benefit, even when we tear down our own creations to rebuild for gain. Case-in-point: Atlanta is currently in the process of building two new giant arenas/stadiums to replace perfectly serviceable facilities that are barely 30 years old. The new Braves stadium involved the complete destruction of one of the few remaining green spaces on the northern arc. The City is currently looking at bids to demolish the 'old' Olympic Stadium, simply because the team ownership decided it wasn't in the most profitable location. Everywhere you go, this is what we do. From Nature's point of view, it is we who is the natural disaster.

So, if you want to criticise my metaphor, go ahead and explain to me how many sociopathic capitalists aren't drooling over the prospect of yet another natural disaster creating more profit opportunities.

Right now it looks like they may be disappointed.

[ennui2]

Ya, ennui, I guess you can't see that there's a metaphor here for how we, modern humans, do everything.

No, because I don't have that big of an axe to grind that I try to use every news event to bash BAU whether it's appropriate or not.

Our entire economy is based on profit from destroying things.

Gross generalization.

Atlanta is currently in the process of building two new giant arenas/stadiums to replace perfectly serviceable facilities that are barely 30 years old.

Anecdotal. I could also point to cases where old buildings are being repurposed.

So, if you want to criticise my metaphor, go ahead and explain to me how many sociopathic capitalists aren't drooling over the prospect of yet another natural disaster creating more profit opportunities.

The melodramatic image of sociopaths drooling over storms is a figment of your own imagination. The flipside is would you like to see cities that get flattened never rebuilt? Somebody has to do it and there needs to be a profit motive to make them want to do it as we don't live in a steady-state communist society of everything being done for the betterment of the common good.

Basically what you are doing is being a grump, putting a negative spin on anything and everything, and never really envisioning a better alternate scenario.

[GHung]

ennui: "The flipside is would you like to see cities that get flattened never rebuilt?"

What I like has absolutely nothing to do with the destructive path humanity is on.

"The melodramatic image of sociopaths drooling over storms is a figment of your own imagination."

Again, you're wrong. Talked to my buddy last night. The insurance people called yesterday and put him on standby. He's packing his truck; excited about the prospect of adjusting and processing claims. Seems business has been a bit slow this year, and I'm betting that there are 1000 others just like him.

"Basically what you are doing is being a grump, putting a negative spin on anything and everything, and never really envisioning a better alternate scenario."

I, for one, don't spray perfume on a turd and call it a rose. It's not my fault if you can't come to terms with the fact that humans have largely succeeded at trashing their environment, and continue to do so on a massive scale, all-the-while rationalising and justifying their behaviour as if that will change anything. I'm as guilty as most folks, but at least I admit it, call a turd a turd, and am attempting to change my own behaviour in less greedy and destructive ways. You busy yourself making excuses. Our grandkids won't give a shit about our excuses.

As for cities getting flattened and never rebuilt; that's where we're headed, and there are plenty of examples of cities like that, built by societies that made excuses, until they couldn't. The difference is that, this time, we can see it coming and still try to excuse our behaviour or pretend it isn't happening. The other difference is, this time it's global. Meanwhile, cities like Miami, which is already under water a lot of the time, keep doing this; gross misallocation of finite resources.......



.... so pardon me if I continue to point out that we're a deluded, greedy species that thrives on destroying things while telling ourselves how clever we are. Your answer is that we just need to continue to go deeper into overshoot. My answer is that there is no answer; not one that anyone will like.

Do you really think that the developers of that high rise give a shit that Miami will likely be under water and largely abandoned in another 30-50 years, or that the immense amount of resources poured into such a project will never be available to future generations?

[kublikhan]

That's the opposite of creative destruction. Havoc from storms while a short term job creator is more than offset by financial capital, real estate and resource losses.

+1

Hurricanes and natural disasters do not benefit our economy. Sure the disaster response industries will see boost to their jobs and income. But this is offset by someone else losing work. Then add to that the wealth destruction cause by property damage and what not.

The primary economic effect of a major disaster such as an earthquake, hurricane, extensive flooding, or a swath of destructive tornadoes is to destroy wealth and destroy our capacity to produce. In macroeconomic terms, a natural disaster is a sudden reduction in our resources: capital equipment, buildings, and available labor. None of this is a good thing. It reduces our ability to produce goods and services in the future and it reduces our welfare right now.

The mistaken idea that damage or disasters are good for the economy is what economists call the Fallacy of the Broken Window. It was first explained by Frederic Bastiat.

Normally the economic impact a natural disaster will be relatively short-lived so long as there is a mechanism to finance reconstruction and the real resources in the larger nation to do it. Typically in a developed nation like the U.S., the financing for reconstruction comes from insurance company payouts and government, especially national government, loans and payments. In particular it is the responsibility of the national government to help rapidly restore infrastructure. If adequate financing and national resources exist, then we rarely find a national impact on GDP or the economy lasting beyond perhaps a 6 months to a year. The smaller the economy, the greater the potential for longer lasting damage and even a failure to rebuild at all. That’s the problem in New Orleans five years after Katrina. The city is now permanently smaller since large numbers of people chose not to return and rebuild. At the U.S. level, though, it’s insignificant.

The lack of financing and resources can severely damage a very small or poor nation for a very long time. That’s why Haiti, a small and poor nation, is so dependent upon outside help to rebuild.

Hurricanes, Disasters, and GDP

"Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass?"
...
In reaching his conclusion that the hooligan boy has conferred no economic benefit on the community, Bastiat first establishes that there is no net stimulus to employment or income. It's true, the glazier's income is higher than it otherwise would have been. This is what is seen. However, Bastiat argues that this undeniable boon to the glazier is perfectly offset by a reduction in income to somebody else in the community, who is now earning less because of the hooligan. All he's done is to give more work/income to the glazier, at the expense of work/income for some other people in the community.

At this point, one might think that the whole episode is a wash. Sure, the boy's vandalism doesn't help, but how does it hurt things?
Specifically, by destroying the window, the boy has made it necessary for people in the community to devote their scarce labor time (and other materials) in order to merely restore the amount of tangible wealth back to its original state. Yet if the boy had not broken the window, then the labor and other materials would have been used in order to make the community's tangible wealth grow.

In summary, Bastiat is arguing that the boy hasn't stimulated total employment or income at all; he has merely shifted it from one sector to another. But when all is said and done, the community will have less wealth following the boy's vandalism than it otherwise would have had. Specifically, the gains and losses in the rest of the community wash out — the glaziers will have more wealth while the cobbler has less — but the shopkeeper is definitely poorer. Rather than having a window and a new pair of shoes, now he will only have a window.

Ironically, it has taken several paragraphs of economic analysis to come full circle back to what common sense told us all along: When a hooligan boy breaks a shopkeeper's window (and the shopkeeper is the one who has to pay for replacing it), the shopkeeper is made poorer by the amount it costs to replace it. The boy's action is destructive; it has made the community poorer; he should not be congratulated in any sense. Duh.

The Broken-Window Fallacy

[Apneaman]

tinfoilhat? So saith the retard who won't even look at the evidence, lest his fragile emotional position get challenged.



Disaster Capitalism in Action: hurricane katrina

2/3 of Funds for Post-Katrina Reconstruction Still Unspent


http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrin ... %2Bkatrina






A History of Disaster Capitalism
Profitting off natural disasters from the San Francisco earthquake to superstorm Sandy.


http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... capitalism

[ennui2]

The insurance people called yesterday and put him on standby. He's packing his truck; excited about the prospect of adjusting and processing claims. Seems business has been a bit slow this year, and I'm betting that there are 1000 others just like him.

What world are you living on??? Insurance companies are in the business of DODGING payouts to their clients. This was even satirized in The Incredibles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R8GtrKtrZ4

Individual employees might like the idea of helping people out in need, but insurance companies themselves do not. They are in the business of gambling on normalcy.

.... so pardon me if I continue to point out that we're a deluded

I think it amounts to a big non-sequitur in this thread, personally.

People are so busy looking for targets to shake their fist at that they aren't even trying to make logical sense with their whining.

[ennui2]

tinfoilhat? So saith the retard who won't even look at the evidence, lest his fragile emotional position get challenged.

What I object to are gross generalizations, and there's plenty of that going on here.

[GHung]

@ennui: Besides calling me a liar, you're the one that has no idea how insurance company disaster response works (hint: I've been there; done that, assisting the guy mentioned above after Alabama tornadoes). I have nothing else to say to you.

[ennui2]

@ennui: Besides calling me a liar, you're the one that has no idea how insurance company disaster response works (hint: I've been there; done that, assisting the guy mentioned above after Alabama tornadoes). I have nothing else to say to you.

Then that insurance company ain't gonna be in business very long with an attitude like that. Like I said. Rank and file insurance workers want to help people. Insurance companies do not, because they lose money every time they payout. They make money on monthly premiums, NOT payouts. It's basic math and if you can't understand that, you're hardly worth talking with.