On Hurricane Katrina
Shay
Two things. One, all the calls for federal government dependency. Various officials are on television calling for government aid and help from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This may sound callous, but I don’t believe that it is the job of the federal government - ahem, taxpayers across the country - to subsidize folks in certain states who are stupid enough to continually build in locales where Nature clearly does not want folks to build. Especially when they earn more money than I do. If they choose to do so, then they should reap the full monetary consequences of doing so.
Another issue, the charges of price gouging on generators and canned goods, etc. Most of what I am hearing being called price gouging ain’t so. Rather, it is supply and demand. When the demand goes up, of course the price will go up! If ya don’t wanna pay the higher prices, then folks who live in hurricane areas should prepare in advance. Folks who are late birds and were procrastinators shouldn’t pay the same prices as the early birds.
Now suppose the government steps in and says, "Sorry. Beans only cost $1 in Fargo, so that's all you can charge in Tuscaloosa. If you charge more, we'll throw you in jail." Now what incentive is there for the Fargo distributor to ship to Tuscaloosa? With all the damage down there, transport and distribution costs will be up; and he probably doesn't have many contacts there. So he'll make more money if he just keeps his beans in Fargo.
Now he may certainly opt to send them to Tuscaloosa anyway. Heck, he may opt to <b>give</b> them to Tuscaloosans. And if he does, I'll be the first to applaud him.
But we shouldn't rely on that generosity. The beauty of free market pricing is it creates incentives that encourage suppliers to meet demands. And when a government interferes, scarcity or surplus is as predictable as sunrise.
I don't believe it is emergency time just yet. I believe the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be used during embargoes, etc. and as a very last resort. How about folks conserving a bit more first?
"Also, I very much doubt that the people in the poorer districts of New Orleans, not to mention gulfport and biloxi, make more money than you do."
The poor folks in New Orleans are 20% of the city's total population. Thus, hardly the average person.
Shay
And why is it we are all paying the costs for the GWOT? After all, only NYC and Washington have been attacked so far, and a lot of people and companies make a lot of money out of being in the financial and political capitols of the country. Clearly, those are the places that make the juiciest targets. Why not let the residents pay for it? Folks in flyover country have very little risk of terrorist attack, so why should they have to pay the defense costs?
Going a little further afield, it certainly was foolish of many of us to contribute over a billion dollars to tsunami relief and reconstruction efforts. After all, those people should have known that the tsunami was coming one day or another. If they were foolish enough to build by the sea, well...
Oh, and let's discontinue Coast Guard search and rescue. It's not news that if you go down to the sea in ships, some ships don't come back. People that want to go on ships should buy private search &rescue insurance if that's what they want. Why should us landlubbers foot the bill?
The Founding Fathers called it the "United" States of America for a reason. Granted, they were a rather naive and idealistic bunch. But I like the way they think.
But, as with all calamities, the choices for what to do are all bad considered in isolation. The fact is that we are not in isolation, and we must choose. Doing nothing is a choice too, and we've decided that the cost of doing nothing is higher than the cost of doing at least one particular thing. Hence the existence of FEMA, etc.
So, to convince me, you need to tell me why the evils of market distortion are worse than the evils of human suffering that disaster relief can prevent. Telling me about the evils of market distortion, and the goods of market correction, tell me nothing about their relative worth to what we are, in fact, doing.
Ditto with charges of price gouging. What we might not tolerate in the normal case might become mandatory in the extreme case. An obvious example: rushing the pilot's cabin in a commercial passenger plane is stupid in very nearly all cases, but was it for United 93 passengers in that route's last flight?
Now turn that sround: prices that we might not tolerate in the normal case might prove very beneficial in the extreme case. Again, I have to recommend Sowell's Basic Economics. He cites as a specific example another hurricane recovery, where there was alleged "gouging" on the price of building supplies. While the prices were high, suppliers were diverting stocks to the affected areas, in search of the higher profits; and because the prices were high, people conserved, only buying what they needed, not what they might like. Then the government stepped in and "fixed" things, forcing the prices down. People started buying more, at the same time suppliers decided there was no incentive to bring supplies in. The result: instant shortage. The market was working -- imperfectly as it always does, but working and self-correcting as it always does. Then the government made matters worse.
I don't share Shay's antipathy toward government aid (though I think there are a lot of good reasons for that antipathy); but when it comes to government price controls, I just haven't seen a case where they've had the desired effect without undesirable side effects that were worse than the original problem.
Ireland.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Can you name the number of states that rarely, if ever, receive federal disaster relief? I would guess that's a fairly large list compared to the states that regularly receive it. I'm all for helping people out, but why people who don't live in hurricane prone areas have to subsidize areas that are hit by hurricanes every couple of years is beyond me. Or, if people want to build their house on a flood plain, why should I help pay for it? Besides, no one ever said that they were ok with disaster relief for everything but hurricanes.
People don't often disaster relief for things like tornados because, while tornados are quite common, they don't commonly reek havoc on the same properties over and over. Plus, tornado-prone areas are usually low in population. Locations that receive disaster relief for hurricanes need it because insurance won't cover it. And insurance won't cover it because they see it as too big of a risk. While I'm no fan of insurance companies, I don't blame them in this case. So, basically, the rest of us are paying their insurance costs (on top of our own), creating a situation where there is actually an incentive to live in these areas.
I'm all for helping them, but I'd prefer to help them move.
WRT the SPR, if I am not mistaken that is largely or exclusively crude oil. Releasing those reserves would do nothing to alter shortages of refined products caused by damage to refineries. This country needs to find a way to build more refinery capacity to deal with the real shortages caused by natural disasters and by government overregulation. (Does anyone know how many different types of gasoline have to be produced in this country to comply with state and federal specs?)
I don't agree with Shay re: FEMA, because even though I understand the motive (it's DUMB to keep paying to repair properties that we KNOW will suffer the same damage again), we've got people in need right now.
But maybe the answer lies somewhere near the most hated Supreme Court decision of the last session: Kelo vs. New London. I would say that an area has a fiscal interest in the maintainability of the properties found there. Here's my wild-eyed, haven't-thought-about-it, five-minutes-to-boarding idea: the third time that any property is eligible to receive FEMA funds, exercise eminent domain. Buy it at fair market value, and turn it into a nature preserve.
I know, it's not very libertarian of me to want to take people's property; but since we're not going to be libertarian enough to cut off their aid, this is the next best thing.
Gotta fly now...
One does not continue to build on an area KNOWN to have the same problems, year after year, and then claim ignorance of their power. That, is in effect, what every county, city, state asking for Federal Disaster Funds is doing.
When South Texas had a 100 year flood last year, there were those bellowing about 'flood plains'. Um, the monitoring of the area indicates that it was a freakish, but to be expected once every five generations, kind of storm. That qualifies for disaster, if only because it's known to be coming but not when, where, and how exactly bad it will get.
Katrina is no different from Claudia, Ivan, and every other storm to hit the Gulf Coast for the last millenia (if not far longer). The people of New Orleans, Biloxi, Key West, Miami, Houston, etc. all know they're in the flood zone. They have no incentive to prevent such future disasters (ala better city planning, higher seabreaks, better pumping and leevy systems) when the Feds come in and throw Billions at them to rebuild as quickly as possible.
The wild fires, and landslides of California (along with earthquakes) are the same. They aren't freakish, they're multiple times a year, they've been getting worse for decades, and those living in the area continue to rebuild, while you and I foot the bill for both the rescue efforts, the repair bills, and the new build costs. They have no incentive to increase their distance from the cliff (though many are millionaires), build earthquake resistant structures, or stop builing in a frikin' forest (and allowing deadwood to be cleared and burned to prevent more fires).
Why should they, having alot of money already, be digging in my pocket (and the poor of Biloxi, New Orleans, Los Angeles, etc...) to help them rebuild? It's insane, and it's a bad practice that has gone lightyears from it's basis of helping those who suffered a catastrophy.
When you live on a fault line, or a gulf coast, you accept the risks. I don't, thus I'm safer from them those that do, but I'm still made to pay to contiune the lunacy of rebuilding with no improved measures at resistance. What sense does that make?
It's called being part of the human race. Compassion and respect for human life. Hey, what would any decent person do if they saw a person in need and could help? We are talking about children who did not choose to live there. Besides, it's the American way to help those less fortunate...that's what truly makes us the greatest nation on earth...our generosity and compassion.
"less fortunate" means that fortune has not smiled upon them. If you've got a bank balance well over a million, you do NOT qualify as 'less fortunate'. I also do NOT need my government giving aid for me. I'm perfectly capable of supporting the charitable causes of my choice, unless of course God is telling you the US Federal Government now deserves to decide who is and is not deserving for the masses.
Last I checked, FEMA doesn't give out bottled water, or food, or clothing. Those are all strictly within the confines of private orginazations. Unless you know of some time that the FEMA folks, checkbook in hand, has gone to Sam's and bought every case of available water for the people suffering.
The way I see it, they call it a flood plain for a reason. Thus, I take precautions with insuance and how mu house is order...
I used to live in Melbourne Florida (Atlantic side, about 45 SE of Orlando). Hurrincanes happen. I never expected anyone to take car of me.
If you live in SF, you gotta expect the gorund to shake, you like in tornado alley, well the wind may blow, you live in a flood plain the water may rise, and if you live in a desert it may get hot and dry. You choose to live there, you deal with the consequences.
OTOH, there are times that really freak natural disasters happen. Sometimes, people do need help. Say, what if Mt. St. Helen's has been closer to a majot pop center...
But FEMA is doing too much, and spending too much money. It is cheapening the risk to live in those areas, so more people will build/live there. In the long run, economics says FEMAs actions will lead to more deaths and more property damage.
YES! It is inappropriate. This is more or less the government specualting in the oil market. I want the STRATEGIC oil reserves used for strategic purposes, not tactial market manipulation. The reason we have it (int theory) is so that we can mantain war making capability for a short time in the event of oil disruption (say the closing of the Suez canal and the straits of Hormuz by terrorists or other foriegn power...
That certainly depends on the situation, I think. If the person in need is "in need" because he or she spent the entirity of his last three paychecks gambling, I'm not real keen on the idea of giving him money, but food and shelter? No problem.
I certainly have no real issue with the idea of helping people in this area (I'd prefer we do it privately, myself, since government "charity" isn't charity so much as theft, but I recognize that's a minority opinion). Helping them rebuild in an area where there's a hurricane season seems kind of wasteful to me. Why not help them relocate in places that aren't quite so unstable? Like Kansas, maybe? Or North Dakota? Both of those places could, conceivably, be subject to harsh conditions (heck, the ND website I linked points out that winters are very harsh), but they're not consistently relying on federal handouts to rebuild their storm-damaged houses, as far as I know.
I'm not going to go so far as Martin Shoemaker did and suggest we employ Eminent Domain on these people. Rather, I'd offer them money for their land (for a nature reserve or some other purpose), and let them know that they were perfectly welcome to refuse -- but they weren't getting a Federal bailout next time their real estate investment turned out to be a wash.