Maybe they think if the entire country had flooded...
We'd All Be Rich!

Economic lunacy
Walter E. Williams
September 7, 2005
According to a couple of poorly trained economists,
there's a bright side to Hurricane Katrina's
destruction. J.P. Morgan senior economist Anthony Chan
believes hurricanes tend to stimulate overall growth. As
reported in "Gas Crisis Looms" (Aug. 31, 2005), written
by CNN/Money staff writer Parija Bhatnagar, Mr. Chan
said, "Preliminary estimates indicate 60 percent damage
to downtown New Orleans. Plenty of cleanup work and
rebuilding will follow in all the areas. That means over
the next 12 months, there will be lots of job creation
which is good for the economy."
Professor Doug Woodward, of the business school at the
University of South Carolina, has the same vision.
Professor Woodward said, "On a personal level, the loss
of life is tragic. But looking at the economic impact,
our research shows that hurricanes tend to become
god-given work projects." Within six months, Professor
Woodward "expects to see a construction boom and job
creation offset the short-term negatives such as loss of
business activity, loss of wealth in the form of
housing, infrastructure, agriculture and tourism revenue
in the Gulf Coast states."
Let's ask a few smell-test questions about these claims
of beneficial aspects of hurricane destruction. Would
there have been even greater economic growth and job
creation for our nation had Hurricane Katrina not only
destroyed New Orleans, Mobile and Gulfport, but other
major metropolitan areas along its path, like Cincinnati
and Pittsburgh, as well? Would we consider it a godsend,
in terms of jobs and economic growth, if a few more
category 4 hurricanes hit our shores? Only a lunatic
would answer these questions in the affirmative.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), a great French economist,
said in his pamphlet "What is Seen and What is Not
Seen": "There is only one difference between a bad
economist and a good one: the bad economist confines
himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes
into account both the effect that can be seen and those
effects that must be foreseen." What economists Chan and
Woodward can see are the jobs and construction boom
created by repairing hurricane destruction. What they
can't see, and thus ignore, is what those resources
would have been used for had there not been hurricane
destruction.
Bastiat wrote a parable about this which has become
known as the "Broken Window Fallacy." A shopkeeper's
window is broken by a vandal. A crowd formed
sympathizing with the man. After a while, someone in the
crowd suggested that the boy wasn't guilty of vandalism;
instead, he was a public benefactor, creating economic
benefits for everyone in town. After all, fixing the
broken window creates employment for the glazier, who
will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then
buy shoes and benefit the cobbler, and so forth.
Those are the seen effects of repairing the broken
window. What's unseen is what the shopkeeper would have
done with the money had the vandal not broken his
window. He might have employed the tailor by purchasing
a suit. The vandal's breaking his window produced at
least two unseen effects. First, it shifted unemployment
from the glazier who now has a job to the tailor who
doesn't. Second, it reduced the shopkeeper's wealth. Had
it not been for the vandalism, the shopkeeper would have
had a window and a suit; now he has just a window.
Of course, were it the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus
providing the resources to repair the destruction of
Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Chan and Professor Woodward would
be correct. But what the heck, maybe we shouldn't be so
harsh on these economists in light of the fact that they
didn't receive their training at George Mason
University's Economics Department, where there are no
bad economists.
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/printww20050907.shtml