Suppose that a city experiences a significant natural disaster, why might an economist argue that in the long-run there
Posted: Thu May 19, 2022 9:56 am
Suppose that a city experiences a significant natural disaster,
why might an economist argue that in the long-run there could be
benefits to the city rising out of the ashes of its immediate
tragedy? Be specific.
Then again, is suffering through a natural disaster necessary
for a city’s economic renaissance? Why or why not?
why might an economist argue that in the long-run there could be
benefits to the city rising out of the ashes of its immediate
tragedy? Be specific.
Then again, is suffering through a natural disaster necessary
for a city’s economic renaissance? Why or why not?