[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
our GDP is high and growing, our GDP includes everything bad that happens. cancer is good for our economy because of all the treatment for it involved and all the money it generates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruiser, I am pretty sure this general take is mistaken in the matter of chronic diseases, because the costs of chronic diseases include enormous amounts of lost productivity in the workplace, as well as other costs. I read some years ago of studies done regarding the effects of cigarette-induced illnesses and the net economic effect of such was quite negative. Greater health care costs also contribute to rising insurance premiums which drain the pockets of the average citizen, so Joe Blow can't go spend that money elsewhere and thus can't raise the GDP in that manner either.

If Joe gets a nasty cold, he buys NyQuil maybe and loses a few days work, or works less effectively if he does go to work. Common colds reduce our country's GDP. Diseases like emphysema, chronic heart disease, and long-term cancer also reduce our GDP. Short-term cancer which quickly kills, raises GDP immediately, but costs GDP in the long run as the victim can no longer contribute years of work to future GDP's, nor can the (dead) victim purchase consumer goods or services in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, Bruiser has used the broken window fallacy.