Democratic Fundamentalism...

What can I say... Al Gore gives us the low down

Apparently the difference between immanent human extinction and long term economic prosperity is a Martin Feldstein endorsed infrastructure boondoggle...

If you can't laugh out loud at Gore's claim that a supposed end of the world scenario is actually an economic boost, you are hopelessly muddled. Classic broken window fallacy. Of course, keep in mind that Gore claims, "break the window, or die." How can people believe this silliness?

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

Bastiat acknowledges that economic good can come from the fixing of something that is broken; the broken window fallacy only tells us that this doesn't mean good comes from breaking things not already broken.

I don't think Gore is arguing that we should break the planet more.

the broken window fallacy refers more generally to the hidden costs or loss of utility to others in a reallocation of resources; it specifically is meant to apply to the case of central planning reallocation of resources...