Posted on 09/05/2017 5:12:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
Seeing the destruction and suffering caused by Hurricane Harvey on TV – as survivors take their first steps on the long road to recovery – brings back my own memories of the aftermath of 55 deadly tornadoes that claimed 243 lives in Alabama on April 27, 2011.
Some things I learned after that terrible day six years ago can help us all understand what’s to come for the more than 1 million people displaced from their homes and for others whose lives were also upended by Harvey’s fury in Texas and nearby states.
I was not in Alabama when the killer tornadoes struck. I arrived in Birmingham the next day, moving there to start a new job as host of a radio talk show.
I was terrified by the devastation I found in my new community. So many people injured. So many dead. So many homes turned to rubble. Debris piles taller than me. Roads impassable.
I submerged myself in working to help my radio audience – folks who needed healing, prayer and a listening ear. And with three postgraduate degrees in mental health, I got out of the radio studio as well, meeting more people than I can count to help them cope with their trauma.
The lessons I learned in those terrible times have stayed with me. I want to share them.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
sad to say.. storms like Harvey are good for the economy.
All that broken stuff has to be fixed/replaced. That stimulates the economy.
Bastiat disagrees.
The economy I see stimulated is almost entirely Mexicans doing manual labor.
Real Americans are not profiting. They are suffering.
all those homes have to be rebuilt/fixed. All those cars replaced, all that furniture replaced, ect.
Huge boost to the economy.
Heck America was built on this simple fact. America rebuilt the world after WW2 and prospered greatly from it for decades.
If my house is struck by lightening and burned to the ground the federal government will not cut me a check.
You are neglecting the negative effect of what people have to pay out of their own pockets. Even for those with insurance, there is going to be a reasonably large deductible. Add to that the utterly devastating effect upon people who don’t have insurance. Whether they should have had insurance or not is beside the point - the point is that these people will have debts for the rest of their lives (particularly those who live under the jurisdiction of a homeowners association that requires a destroyed property to be replaced before it can be sold). Their purchasing power in the future will be vastly reduced from what it would have otherwise been - either that, or their credit will be ruined, which will negatively affect their ability to spend money in the future. Many people will never recover.
It is an economic fallacy to believe that something like this is stimulative. Of course it is for people who did not lose anything. But a blanket statement like that completely ignores those who have lost. It also ignores the effect upon insurance premiums at least in the affected region, if not nationwide. Those premiums will rise in order to both replace the money that insurance companies will pay out, and to mitigate the risk of further claims of this type. Those increased premiums will reduce purchasing power across the nation. How is that positive for the economy?
All that broken stuff has to be fixed/replaced. That stimulates the economy.
What is the broken window fallacy?THE BROKEN WINDOWA: The broken window fallacy was first expressed by the great French economist, Frederic Bastiat. Bastiat used the parable of a broken window to point out why destruction doesn't benefit the economy. In Bastiat's tale, a man's son breaks a pane of glass, meaning the man will have to pay to replace it.
When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
Sorry, but I don’t buy feel-good stories like this. The result of Harvey is horrid and will be hell to get over for many in Houston. Sucked when it happened and still sucks today and next year too.
But that’s through ACTIVELY breaking, not passively via natural disaster.
After Irma hits, the new southern reconstruction will power the Gulf economy for years.
After Irma hits, the new southern reconstruction will power the Gulf economy for years.
Your statement that this rebuilding stimulates the economy is not true. That is why we call it a natural disaster. We will not be better off than we were.
Only if they install waterproof hard floors, waterproof furniture, and removable, waterproof lower wallboard panels. Maybe jack that house up about 6' while you're at it.
Tell that to Galveston.
And it’s the *velocity* of money, not *amount* of wealth parked that moves the economy.
John Maynard Keynes is very proud of you.
Poor people don’t usually own their homes. They are usually renting, which means the cost to rebuild with fall on the owner or more specifically their insurance company.
Nearly no one owns their home outright, which means they are required to have insurance and if they are in a flood zone, they will be required to have flood insurance.
“Nearly no one owns their home outright, which means they are required to have insurance and if they are in a flood zone, they will be required to have flood insurance.”
If that’s true why doesn’t anyone have an economy based on building stuff then tearing it down and rebuilding it? Spending money replacing good infrastructure is not a good long term investment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.