The post was merely pointing out the very robust and self-correcting nature of a free-market system. As well, Stephen Gandel elucidates the “egocentricity” of economics. That being the way people tend to look at the flow of money from their personal perspective ignoring the systemic long-view of overall prosperity and global economic health. The whole system consists of many “shells” (global, national, state, local, personal…etc.) and ANY intelligent discussion shouldn’t ignore the effects that PERSPECTIVE have on it.

Alright, suppose we live in a world where it never snows, and no money is taken from the populace by government for snow removal via taxes. That money would then be in the hands of the populace to spend as they choose, on electronics, cars, bananas, etc… basically anything they want. Currently, snow, and the taxes taken for the removal of that snow are in effect robbing from establishments such as electronics companies, automotive companies, banana growers, etc. Every dollar spent on dealing with snow is one less dollar able to be spent on another productive use.

The author of this article is implying that its ok to pay whatever you want for the removal of snow because it’ll just recycle back into the economy anyway. This is patently untrue.

And the second part of the article is absurd as well:
“The reason is that just because people don’t make it to work doesn’t mean work doesn’t get done…
It just means some of the work will get done tomorrow. And that’s true for all sectors of the economy.”

So one day is ok? How about a week? How about a year? What if society stops for 10 years and then resumes? Will all 10 years of economic progress be made up for in the first few days/years of resumed activity? Of course not.

http://www.ridelust.com/ridelust-rant-gms-broken-window-fallacy/
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

its econ 101 stuff

But then now I’m wondering how/if the concept of ‘sick days’ are similar to ‘snow days.’ With many health care cost estimates including sick days and productive hours lost and job time lost due to illness, wouldn’t these also seem to be an incorrect estimate based on this article? Applying the idea in this article, the hours lost due to illness and the work missed would eventually be made up and get done, so then there is no real cost aside from medical expenditures?

The article makes an intriguing argument, and I’m wondering whether this can be extrapolated at all or whether it really is confined to snow.

I live in Colorado but was born and raised in the DC metro area. It’s definitely interesting to see how contrasted the reactions are to winter weather. An interesting and publicly acknowledged “local economic phenomenon” here is how when Denver gets snow during a nationally televised Bronco’s home game, the ski resorts get a “bump” in reservations. Also, because of the western state’s continuing water shortages, precipitation in any form is almost ALWAYS welcomed with open arms.