Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (139590)	9/19/2005 7:47:45 PM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 794389

You aren't arguing that NO should just rebuild as is, are you? Don't you think maybe they ought to give consideration to raising the land levels in the areas completely wiped out? Shouldn't they give some thought to how best avoid another disaster, and not necessarily a category 4 disaster? If they need to redesign the levees and canal system, shouldn't they wait and see what those requirements are before rebuilding in affected areas? I don't see the point in pretending nothing happened or that it won't happen again.

To: carranza2 who wrote (139590)	9/19/2005 8:04:29 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 794389

It's a silly idea because calamities happen Of course calamities happen. The question is who bears the risk. Personal responsibility and insurance pools have served us well, historically. Socialism, OTOH, hasn't worked very well. the type of calamities whose reconstruction you suggest should not be funded by taxpayers are rare, ultimately affordable, and the reconstruction of the affected cities is in the public interest. Let's take "rare" and "affordable" first. Do you think that, if we all pay to rebuild NO, Sarasota and Key West and Daytona won't expect the same thing? Did you notice that people are saying we should have a fund for Katrina victims like for the 911 victims? Do it once and everyone after that expects it. Precedent. Ophelia blew by. Rita's coming. Are the feds going to pay for rebuilding the housing that is lost from them? Talk about silly ideas. And dangerous ones. One further point on affordability, just because something is affordable, then the feds should do it? Good grief. the reconstruction of the affected cities is in the public interest. I have no idea on what basis you assert that. It's not intuitively obvious to me what difference it makes if people live in Cleveland or whether they go someplace else. (I use Cleveland so as to make the topic more neutral.) I have not heard any argument that it's in the public interest that Cleveland continue to exist in its present form. Forget about dockworkers working that "national asset"; they wouldn't be able to afford the high and dry real estate since it has always sold at a premium. If dockworkers are needed, then their compensation will adjust according to supply and demand. They will either be paid enough to live nearby, transported in from someplace a bit farther away, provided housing by the company, or something. There's no reason why they have to live where they've been living. Whatever added costs there are will be paid for by all of us in the form of higher product costs. That's the capitalist way. Perhaps a village, but certainy insufficient to support a city of any magnitude. So why does NO have to be a city of magnitude? Where is that written? The city will be as big as the city gets. Some people will continue to live on low land. What is at issue is not where they live but whether they get subsidized for it. I shouldn't have to explain this on a thread full of capitalists and conservatives...