Glenn MacDonald, the economist, says that $20-$25 billion isn't much compared to an economy of $10 trillion. It's thinking like that that gets you into trouble. The impact of a hurricane like this may be that it:
- displaces hundreds of thousands of people (leading to social problems much later down the line)
- causes food price impacts, from sugar to tobasco sauce
- can have worldwide price premium consequences in terms of the price of petroleum
The correct response to Gustav is to make real commitments and concessions to ameliorate climate change, not to factor in the percentage of loss on a balance sheet, and say hey, we can afford to pollute and consume etc. until just below this point on the graph (the point of no return). It's like a smoker saying he will smoke until he has cancer - and until then, sees no harm or connection. That's just plain loco.
But some think the economic impact of Gustav might not live up to the images of thousands fleeing its wrath. While a short-term hiccup in oil and gas prices is possible, economist Glenn MacDonald said the storm is very unlikely to produce a long-term impact or important consequences for the nation's economy as a whole.
"It's awful when you're in one, but the fact is the U.S. economy is so big that these things just don't matter that much economically," said MacDonald, a professor of economics at Washington University in St. Louis. "Katrina was a real mess and caused something like $25 billion in damage. But if you lose $20 billion or $25 billion in the context of a $10 trillion economy, it's not really a very big deal."
As for the long-term effect of a storm: "One of the things we found out after Katrina and Rita was that the plants came back faster than the surrounding communities," Flynn said.
|
clipped from ap.google.com
No comments:
Post a Comment