From the same stink shit elite asshole (sorry, but deserved) that lied about the NAU, said a DEPRESSION would be a good idea, that being poor is your own fault, and pushed the propaganda a whole pile.
And NOW THIS OUTRAGE!!!!
I keep hearing HAARPS, readers.
"How disasters help; Natural disasters can give a boost to countries-- and sometimes, the more the better" by Drake Bennett | July 6, 2008
I think I'm going to be SICK, readers!!!!
THE EARTHQUAKE THAT struck China's Sichuan Province in May left behind scenes of almost apocalyptic devastation: mountaintops sheared off into valleys, cities reduced to rubble and dust, cracked dams, collapsed bridges, and at least 80,000 dead.
The massive rebuilding effort, and the billions of dollars it would pump into the Chinese economy, would far outweigh the economic losses from the quake. In fact, some economists argue that hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, ice storms, and the like, despite the widespread destruction they leave behind - indeed, largely because of it - can spur economic growth.
Rebuilding efforts serve as a short-term boost by attracting resources to a country, and the disasters themselves, by destroying old factories and old roads, airports, and bridges, allow new and more efficient public and private infrastructure to be built, forcing the transition to a sleeker, more productive economy in the long term.
It is ill-making, isn't it, readers?!
The people who are pushing this extermination and population reducing plan are absolutely sick, readers.
And if this is the case, WHY the BASHING of BURMA and CHINA in the Zionist news pages, huh?
Mark Skidmore, an economics professor at Michigan State University: "Disasters help people think about things differently."
Studies have found that earthquakes in California and Alaska helped stir economic activity there, and that countries with more hurricanes and storms tend to see higher rates of growth. Some of the most recent work has found a link between disasters and subsequent innovation.
Translation: DISASTERS are GOOD!!
What a SICK SOB!!!!
I'll remember this the next time this shit stink finds himself in one!!!
As more people move to riskier areas, and the world's climate shifts, the debate over natural disasters and their impact has been gaining in resonance. The population of coastal hurricane zones and cities, from San Francisco to Mexico City to Tokyo, that sit on or near major seismic faults, continues to grow, and climatologists warn that climate change could increase the number of extreme weather events in many parts of the world. While not even the most fervent believer in the economy-catalyzing qualities of disasters would wish for one, the study of the costs and possible benefits of such events may help us better understand how to target recovery efforts - and, perhaps, how to replicate the salutary effects of disasters without the disasters themselves.
The condescending arrogance is really something I can not stomach, readers.
As for not wishing for it, he's covering up the evil of our rulers on that one.
Just FULFILLING HIS ROLE as a GLOBALIST PROPAGANDIST!!!!
. . .
The economic study of natural disasters has roots in the study of human disasters - in particular, the effects of wars, real and imagined. In the 1950s and 1960s, analysts at the RAND Corporation think tank, trying to work out the total impact of a nuclear attack on the United States, created models for how such an attack would affect our economy. The best-known of these thinkers was Herman Kahn, a physicist and systems analyst notorious for his willingness, even eagerness, to reduce the seemingly unthinkable to dry actuarial calculations. In his 1961 book, "On Thermonuclear War," Kahn wrote that, thanks to the United States' strong growth rate at the time, even a nuclear attack that destroyed all of its major metropolitan areas and killed one-third of its population "does not seem to be a total economic catastrophe. It may simply set the nation's productive capacity back a decade or two plus destroying many 'luxuries.' "
Oh, so a NUCLEAR WAR WOULDN'T BE SO BAD, either, huh?
Fucking DERANGED MONSTERS!!!!!!!!
Natural disasters provided an opportunity to see how societies actually recovered from such large-scale shocks. In 1969, Douglas Dacy and Howard Kunreuther, two young analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, published a book called "The Economics of Natural Disasters," one of the first attempts to quantify the economic impact of catastrophes. The book was largely a case study of the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964, the most powerful ever recorded in North America. Dacy and Kunreuther found that the money that rushed into the Alaskan economy after the temblor, as well as generous government loans and grants for rebuilding, meant that many Alaskans were actually better off afterward than before.
Let's see if he mentions Naomi Klein or her book.
But though it may have proved unpopular among Alaskans still dealing with the aftermath of the disaster - which killed 131 people, destroyed several towns along the Alaskan coast, and leveled portions of Anchorage - the idea that disasters trigger short-term growth has gained adherents among economists.
The year after Hurricane Andrew struck southeast Florida in 1992, causing what would today be more than $40 billion in damages, the state saw sharp increases in employment thanks to new construction jobs. And Faucher credits the rebuilding jobs and aid and investment that followed the 1994 Northridge earthquake for helping pull the Los Angeles area out of its early-1990s economic slump. Hurricane Katrina, Faucher says, has proved an exception: Because so many residents left the area and because government aid was so slow to arrive and insurance payouts so low, the area didn't see an economic bounce.
Yeah, the GOVERNMENT NEGLECT had nothing to do with it!!!!
To critics of this line of thinking, the problem is that it is, at best, a partial picture. It ignores, they argue, the fact that the money and labor that go into post-disaster rebuilding are simply being redirected from other productive uses.
Yeah, but DON'T MIND THAT!!!
This guy is SELLING an AGENDA!!!!!
Donald Boudreaux, an economics professor at George Mason University: "Over any reasonably relevant period of time, society is not made wealthier by destroying resources," he adds. If it were, "Beirut should be one of the wealthiest places in the world."
The research on longer-run effects, its supporters argue, is less vulnerable to this criticism, because the key factor is not merely new stuff but better stuff. In this model, disasters perform the economic service of clearing out outdated infrastructure to make way for more efficient replacements - Mother Nature's contribution to what the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter famously called capitalism's "creative destruction." The economy, as it recovers, actually becomes more productive than it was before, and some economists argue that the effect can be seen decades after the disaster.
Are you as disgusted by this shit as I am, readers?
When Dacy and Kunreuther looked at Alaska after the quake, they found that the state's fishing fleet, refurbished after being decimated by the ensuing tsunami, was able to increase its yield over pre-quake levels. And the building industry grew more innovative, as well. Whereas before, construction had been limited to the warmer months of the year, the pressure to rebuild quickly drove the adoption of new methods and technologies like the use of "visqueen" plastic films to protect construction sites, allowing work to continue year-round despite the bitter Alaskan winter.
Well, with the ice sheet melting they WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT anymore!!!!!
That will be an ECONOMIC BENEFIT, too, right?
Then tell the ENVIRO CULTISTS to SHADDUP, will ya?
In the case of climatic disasters - hurricanes and cyclones, as opposed to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions - the more the better: nations with more climatic disasters grew faster over the long run than the less disaster-prone. Why only climatic disasters? The authors suggest that, as we've gotten better at forecasting violent weather, its human costs, at least, can be mitigated much more easily than with geological disasters, which still take us by surprise.
. . .Of course, even analysts of the "creative destruction" school don't see disasters as good things - disasters kill people, often in great numbers, and uproot many more.
Yeah, but that is an AFTERTHOUGHT, isn't it?
I mean, it IS in this ARTICLE, isn't it? SICKENING!!!!!
Skidmore is careful to point out that, even from a coldly economic standpoint, the most productive disasters are those that don't take lives. In harming buildings but not people, they encourage societies to invest less in vulnerable, immovable things like factories, he argues, and more in human capital, in skills and education, "things that won't be destroyed if a disaster strikes," he says.
Tell that to New Orleans, asshole!!!
Nonetheless, a recovery planned only to maximize growth might well conflict with more basic humanitarian concerns.
Yeah, see the Gulf Coast!!!!
Those most in need of help and resources in the wake of a disaster - the poor and the uninsured near-poor - are going to contribute the least to growing the economy as it recovers. On the other hand, those best equipped to find opportunities for growth in the rubble - large corporations and the wealthy - are also those best able to survive the catastrophe on their own.
Translation: U.S. society is WEIGHTED toward the WEALTHY -- and always has been!!!!
"If you took all the disaster relief money and gave it out to the corporations affected, you will have spent a lot of money very intelligently in terms of urban growth," says Larry Rosenthal, executive director of the program on housing and urban policy at the University of California, Berkeley, "but not in terms of fairness."
Thank God this article is coming to an end, because I've about had it.
Indeed, disaster recovery has attracted critics who see it as a predatory industry in disguise; in a book published last fall called "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," the journalist Naomi Klein argued that corporations, first-world governments, and aid organizations treat natural disasters as chances to open up new markets - with dismal results for the recovering nations themselves.
Oh, so NOW he gets around to Klein and her book -- and doesn't discuss it!!!
Maybe the next article will be about her and her book, huh?
Not bloody likely knowing the propaganda-pushers at the Globe!!!!!!!
It may be, then, that disaster economics works best as a guide in those times when we don't have disasters to contend with.
Yeah, we can just DO IT BECAUSE it is the RIGHT THING TO DO!!
So WHY the LENGTHY ARTICLE, Drake?
What is with the "DISASTERS are GOOD," shit?!!!!!!!!!
Pffffffffttttt!!!!!
Investing in human capital, replacing outdated plants and infrastructure - the things that Kunreuther and Skidmore argue disasters drive us to do - are also, it turns out, good ideas even in the absence of a crippling catastrophe. If the disaster economists are right, calamities are simply pushing societies to make the sort of sound economic decisions that inertia or fear or bureaucratic sclerosis prevents them from otherwise making. Governments and businesses might do well to adopt some of the urgency and innovation of a post-disaster mind-set even in more clement times."
And that is when I stopped reading the Boston Globe today, because I was thoroughly choking on the bile that had risen up in my throat.
Good day, readers.
