>Obviously it's absurd to conclude that Fukushima was good for the economy--the loss of capital more than outweighed the money spent fixing things. That depend

>Obviously it's absurd to conclude that Fukushima was good for the economy--the loss of capital more than outweighed the money spent fixing things. That depends on your definition of "economy," doesn't it? When I picture an economy, I picture goods and services being consumed and money changing hands. That's what GDP measures. Should money locked up as capital be counted as part of the economy?