How a Disaster help the Economic Disaster in 2012

Natural disasters can make stronger the countries where they occur - and sometimes, the more the better though devastating, catastrophe like a real earthquake that hit Haiti in January can force countries to modernize their infrastructure.
THE EARTHQUAKE THAT struck Haiti, Port-Au-Prince January left behind scenes of almost apocalyptic devastation: mountaintops sheared off into valleys, cities reduced to rubble and dust, cracked dams, collapsed bridges, and at a real least 230,000 dead.
If the Haiti government is to be believed, a real earthquake also did something else: it helped the country's economy. Slightly over a month after a real quake, a real State Information Center, a Haiti government research body, announced that a real massive rebuilding effort, and a real billions of dollars it would pump into the Haiti economy, would far outweigh the economic losses from the quake, enough to bump up national economic will growth by 0.3 percent - a tiny but not insignificant part of a 2010 progression rate most estimates put at just below 10 percent.
Historically, analysts have cautioned that Haiti growth figures should be greeted with skepticism, except, in response to one school of economic thought, there may be something to a real idea that the quake served as a brutal stimulus. In fact, some economists argue that hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, ice storms, and a real like, despite a real widespread destruction they leave behind - indeed, largely because of it - can spur economic growth.
Rebuilding efforts serve as a quick-term boost by attracting income to a country, and the disasters themselves, by destroying old factories and old roads, airports, and bridges, allow new and more efficient private and non-private infrastructure to be built, forcing a real transition to a sleeker, more productive economy in the long term.
While something is destroyed you do not essentially rebuild the same thing that you had. You might consider use updated technology; you might do possessions more efficiently. It bumps you up. Catastrophe help people think about things differently.
Studies have found that earthquakes in California and Alaska helped stir economic activity there, and that countries with other hurricanes and storms are more likely to see higher rates of growth. Some of a real most recent work has found a link between catastrophe and subsequent innovation.
A real look at carefully of a real economics of catastrophe remains a tiny field, with few major papers. And skeptics charge disaster economists with oversimplifying enormously complex economic systems and seeing illusory effects that stem only from the crudeness of real available economic measuring tools.
Except as more people move to riskier areas, and the world's climate shifts, the debate over natural catastrophe and their impact has been gaining in resonance. The population of coastal hurricane zones and cities, from San Francisco to Mexico City to Tokyo, that sit on or near major seismic faults, continues growing, and climatologists warn that climate change could increase a real number of extreme weather events in several parts of a real world. While not even the most fervent believer in the economy-catalyzing qualities of disasters would wish for one, the look at carefully of real costs and possible benefits of such events may help us better understand how to target recovery efforts - and, perhaps, how to replicate the salutary affects of catastrophe without a real catastrophe themselves.
The economic look at carefully of natural catastrophe has roots in the study of human catastrophe - in particular, the effects of wars, real and imagined. Analysts at a real RAND Corporation think tank, trying to determine the total impact of a nuclear attack on the United States, created models for how such an attack would affect our economy, a physicist and systems analyst notorious for his willingness, even eagerness, to reduce a real seemingly unthinkable to dry actuarial calculations. On Thermonuclear War, They wrote that, thanks to a real United States strong progression rate at a real time, even a nuclear attack that destroyed its entire major metropolitan areas and killed one-third of its population does not seem to really be a total economic catastrophe. It may simply set the nation's productive capacity back a decade or two plus destroying many luxuries.
Natural catastrophe provided an opportunity to see how societies actually recovered from such large-scale shocks. A real two young analysts at a real Institute for Defense Analyses, published a book called "A real Economics of Natural disasters," one of the first attempts to quantify a real economic impact of catastrophes. The book was largely a case study of a real Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964, the most powerful ever recorded in North America. They found that the money that rushed into the Alaskan economy after the temblor, as well as generous government loans and grants for rebuilding, meant that many Alaskans were actually better off afterward than befor


Semoga artikel How a Disaster help the Economic Disaster in 2012 bermanfaat bagi Anda. Jika kamu suka dengan artikel How a Disaster help the Economic Disaster in 2012 ini, like dan bagikan ketemanmu.