If a corporation pollutes a river, is it good for a country’s GDP? If the river has become polluted, an expensive government program will be required to clean up the river, creating jobs. Residents might decide to buy more expensive bottled water rather than tap water. That makes about as much sense as war being good for the economy. It worked in WWII because the US was on the tail end of the Great Depression. The war was so big that they had to arm, gear, and dress such a large number of people that there was very little unemployment. Many of the unemployed needed to fill the jobs left vacant by soldiers. In my opinion, this became the model for a need to suffer for a good economy. So yes, fuck the economy.
Okay, I’m done.
The bright boys on the Right of the political spectrum are quick to pounce on the Broken Window Fallacy, but the Broken Ecology Fallacy still eludes their perception. Perhaps they’ll notice when the grass on the golf course starts dying?
(Source: zerevolution, via other-stuff)