Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (31771)	4/18/2003 1:21:11 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Jay, Re: This SARS thing, even, could end up being a long-term economic boost, unlike war. Some say war is good for the economy. I can easily make a case that disease is better still for the same purpose. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the silver lining. Obviously certain sectors such as the medical professionals and suppliers get a boost from disease. But I can't quite see how the transfer of a society's wealth to one sector helps the economy overall. Perhaps you could provide an example or your theory of how Sars could provide a long term boost? In the case of Black Plague in Europe we find that labor was a winner: econ.bu.edu <COPY> • The Black Death killed one third of Europe’s population in 1348-1351 • England’s population fell from 3.7 mil in 1348 to 2.1 mil in 1430 owing to wars and reoccurrence of the Plague • Real wages in England rose 25% following the Plague... <END COPY> However, GDP went through the floor, so, on balance, I'm not sure about the 'silver lining' point of view. Another 'silver lining' scenario here: time.com

To: TobagoJack who wrote (31771)	4/18/2003 1:27:20 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 74559

I won a convert to my idea of capital available, GDP growth but no economic activity!

To: TobagoJack who wrote (31771)	4/18/2003 3:25:52 AM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

>> Some say war is good for the economy. I can easily make a case that disease is better still for the same purpose. Should we connect the two strands of thought, a bull market is born<< Reeling you in on my subject - no net capex no profits as the central Austrian moral: AIDS. By the time Africa is a desert, Asia (ie China and Russia to name a few) are close to gone, it will be too late to start another war. HIV virus - a WMD if I ever heard of one... So what about a broad drive "to get us a vaccine by 2005" - hear JFK intone it? - . Net Capex aka kick-start for profits? Illusionary I guess, but not for the want of trying... DJ

To: TobagoJack who wrote (31771)	4/18/2003 9:14:14 AM
From: mcg404	Respond to of 74559

Jay: <Some say war is good for the economy. > And some say it isn't. progress.org War is a good example. War puts many people to work. It also puts people to death. After mass destruction, there is mass rebuilding, which is "good" for the economy. Does that make war productive? No, since they just rebuild what was there, or shift resources from other goods that would have added to what was there. Hazlitt noted that "the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics." If by 'economy' we mean nothing more than activity, we can agree. But if we mean something that adds to the wealth of a society, the 'broken window' fallacy comes into play. Of course, most people don't care about the long term wealth of their community, but only want to grab the money that circulates due to the 'economic activity' and increase their own wealth. John