That is actually a well recognized economic fallacy. What it leaves out is the fact that that money could have been spent on other things that would improve our lives, instead of replacing perfectly good things with no net benefit.
That is why many people oppose "alternative" energy - it will waste the billions we spent on our perfectly OK current power system with new. While that money would be better spent improving our lives, bringing people out of poverty, building new roads, or feeding our families. Unfortunately most politicians don't have a clue about this or other economic concepts. thanks JK At 08:57 AM 9/24/2016, Denis Heidtmann wrote: >On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Russell Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ... > > Just as law enforcement won't eliminate or curtail, or in a lot of > > instances prosecute these crimes because the gain to the economy is much > > more than the losses incurred. > > > > >If true, this is an example of why I could never understand economics. If >I set fire to a bunch of buildings, the economy improves since all those >fire fighters, demolition and construction workers are now employed. Let's >become the richest country in the world by setting fire to all our cities! >Econ-logic. > >-Denis >_______________________________________________ >PLUG mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
