There's an interesting discussion here about which James Bond villain has a scheme that makes the most economic sense. It's interesting because not every scheme has to do with making money. Kurt Stromburg in The Spy Who Loved Me wants a nuclear war to destroy the world so he can move humanity to living undersea. Hugo Drax of Moonraker also wants to destroy the world so it can be repopulated with genetically superior people. Economics are not high on their list of priorities.
Some folks say that Auric Goldfinger of Goldfinger, who wants to render the U.S. gold supply radioactive and worthless so his own supply of gold will be worth more, has the most economically sound evil scheme. But the author points out a number of flawed assumptions that would make irradiating the gold supply not nearly the catastrophe Goldfinger thinks it would be.
In the comments, discussion continues about the various evil plots and which one is the most viable. All, however leave out the one factor that makes every such plot an economic loser: You're going up against James Bond. You're doomed, and that just doesn't pass the cost-benefit analysis.