Obviously not, but it does open the door for conspiracy theorists and understanding that some will choose their own self-interest at the expense of others. In direct relation to a fire, I seem to recall a forest fire in Utah or Arizona a couple years ago that was started by a firefighter desperate for work. In more general terms, consider the US motives for going into Iraq or look at congressional voting and campaign contributions at maplight.org.

I’m getting off topic.

Another comment on the original article- just the fact that some economists or businessmen are licking their chops at the opportunity to profit, or can dismiss suffering and loss in the name of economic development is, to me, a sign of a unhealthy society. Economic vitality is ultimately not the most important element of an ideal society.

It was either Bastiat or Henry Hazlitt who discussed the things we see versus the things we can’t see. The LA Times economists are very poor at their craft, because they have only taken into account what can be seen, and they don’t seem to give a crap about the families whose lives have been destroyed and what (and how long) it will take to get back to where they once were.

Same thing with the war profiteers and military industrial complex…

All these small groups are doing is profiting from someone else’s demise. The net result is that we’ve essentially wasted economic resources to get back to where we started.

I sure hope none of the economists cited by the LA Times ever run for public office. But then again, some of them are already in office.

While I was relating my statement strictly to economics, I do see your point when applied to other realms of life.

I suppose that my reason for saying that statement is that bad does not justify good. Do good things come as a result of bad ones? Sure – in the broken window theory, the glazier gets a job. That’s good, right? Sure, but that doesn’t justify the bad thing that caused the good thing.

Another separate thought is the specific construction company that gets rich off the new contracts is better off.

As I stated in the post, there are indeed immediate, related interests (in the case of the theory, the glazier.. in the case of the fires, the construction companies) that do indeed profit. But the fallacy of the argument is when somebody (in this case, the cited economist) states that such an event is beneficial to the economy. That is false.

“Nobody is better off after a disaster”

Disaster and war have been very good to the LDS Church: from good press in New Orleans, to thousands upon thousands of converts in the Philippines starting with U.S. servicemen in WWII.

Another separate thought is the specific construction company that gets rich off the new contracts is better off. This can be carried over into the Iraq war and all the companies that have become extremely rich from their government contracts, and hence their financial conflict of interest for the war to end.