but critics described the p.t. r.f. as another form of disaster capitalism actually the p.b.r. aphis it has to be rented by the local governments it's not in the manner then act on the part of the i.r.s. it's something it's a structure just like any other infrastructure and when you use it the government has to pay for it you can call it public private partnership but it's really the government subsidizing the profits of the corporation in the painting r.f. just an eighteen y. for companies to further entrenched themselves in the profits of doing infrastructure after the disaster. i don't think i don't see that at all i know that there's a natural suspicion particularly in the part of the military and sector other parts there's a natural skepticism perhaps towards business there's always a gain or a profit motive behind it but he concedes there are incentives well for one thing they want to be seen as good corporate citizens so it's good public relations the other element is that for a company it makes good business sense to get the court to be up and running to get their custo