Hurricane Irene and Keynesian insanity

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

Boulevardier wrote: »

California wouldn't have a hope. They have come within inches of bankruptcy. Their tax cutting propositions can't have helped.

California has been destroyed by a democratic legislature and a governor whose fiscal policy would be more welcome in the democrats.

20Cent wrote: »

Its not very economical for every state have its own emergency response services why not a national organisation that can go to the area affected.

Tell us what the libertarian solution is then?

Insurance has been mentioned so far.

First off, if you can't but insurance or your house is shoddy, don't live in a place where disasters strike. Move to North Dakota, there are plenty of jobs there too.

Secondly, all states and major towns have their own emergency response unit. In the same way that different cities have their own police, drug, abortion and marriage laws.

Disaster response should be a volunteer thing with no full time workers. I think that this is one area where it is acceptable for state government to intervene. The state has no responsibility to rebuild houses but I support the notion of states supplying food, water and medical supplies to victims.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It took five pages for you to call me a statist must be a record.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

First off, if you can't but insurance or your house is shoddy, don't live in a place where disasters strike. Move to North Dakota, there are plenty of jobs there too.

So don't live on near the coast, earthquake areas, hurricane areas or wildfire areas. Where is left? North Dakota go flooded by the way.

matthew8 wrote: »

Secondly, all states and major towns have their own emergency response unit. In the same way that different cities have their own police, drug, abortion and marriage laws.

Disaster response should be a volunteer thing with no full time workers. I think that this is one area where it is acceptable for state government to intervene. The state has no responsibility to rebuild houses but I support the notion of states supplying food, water and medical supplies to victims.

FEMA don't rebuild houses for people. They offer low interest loans to help people rebuild if they don't have insurance and there are many places where no one can get flood insurance. It is not economically viable for an insurance company to cover them so they do not offer it. The Feds offer insurance because the market can't supply it.

Suggesting local volunteers fix billions in damage an rescuing people buried under rubble or trapped by floods is precisely the stupidity that means Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected president.

matthew8

So don't live on near the coast, earthquake areas, hurricane areas or wildfire areas. Where is left? North Dakota go flooded by the way.

If you can't cope with a natural disaster (a poorly built house or no insurance are examples) you shouldn't be living in Florida or San Francisco. If you are prepared for natural disasters go live wherever you want but if you aren't don't ask the government to bail out your poor decisions.

FEMA don't rebuild houses for people. They offer low interest loans to help people rebuild if they don't have insurance and there are many places where no one can get flood insurance. It is not economically viable for an insurance company to cover them so they do not offer it. The Feds offer insurance because the market can't supply it.

Suggesting local volunteers fix billions in damage an rescuing people buried under rubble or trapped by floods is precisely the stupidity that means Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected president.

Here you are ranting again saying that he has no chance of being president even after I corrected you countless times that people who make a living off politics betting think he does.

I wouldn't want to live in a place than an insurer refuses to insure my house and encouraging people to live in these places is encouraging bad decisions.

Local volunteers should be funded by the state government to fix the damage. It is insanity to suggest that a disaster response agency should have a large amount of full time workers when there is no work to do (like when there is no disaster).

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

If you can't cope with a natural disaster (a poorly built house or no insurance are examples) you shouldn't be living in Florida or San Francisco. If you are prepared for natural disasters go live wherever you want but if you aren't don't ask the government to bail out your poor decisions.

Almost every part of the US has potential disaster problems.

matthew8 wrote: »

Here you are ranting again saying that he has no chance of being president even after I corrected you countless times that people who make a living off politics betting think he does.

I wouldn't want to live in a place than an insurer refuses to insure my house and encouraging people to live in these places is encouraging bad decisions.

Local volunteers should be funded by the state government to fix the damage. It is insanity to suggest that a disaster response agency should have a large amount of full time workers when there is no work to do (like when there is no disaster).

FEMA don't rebuild houses, they also don't have large numbers of people waiting for a disaster they are mostly reservists called into service when something happens. They do rescue people from rubble, flooding, provide shelter and water. They also help coordinate emergency help.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

If you can't cope with a natural disaster (a poorly built house or no insurance are examples) you shouldn't be living in Florida or San Francisco. If you are prepared for natural disasters go live wherever you want but if you aren't don't ask the government to bail out your poor decisions.

But Florida and California both, have regulations in place - known as Building Codes - which enforce a minimum standard of building quality. For instance in Los Angeles a building must be certified to withstand whatever magnitude of Earthquake. In a purely libertarian model (while I do see some benefits of the idea, but) the building would not have been built to code and the privateer would have cut corners in the construction of the building.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

But Florida and California both, have regulations in place - known as Building Codes - which enforce a minimum standard of building quality. For instance in Los Angeles a building must be certified to withstand whatever magnitude of Earthquake. In a purely libertarian model (while I do see some benefits of the idea, but) the building would not have been built to code and the privateer would have cut corners in the construction of the building.

I would just like to make a distinction here, pure libertarian does not mean Rothbardian, that would be pure anarcho-capitalist. I think however that it is in the interest of a builder (and the person paying him) to build something that won't collapse when an earthquake comes, especially if they know the government won't rebuild their building.

Suryavarman

Overheal wrote: »

But Florida and California both, have regulations in place - known as Building Codes - which enforce a minimum standard of building quality. For instance in Los Angeles a building must be certified to withstand whatever magnitude of Earthquake. In a purely libertarian model (while I do see some benefits of the idea, but) the building would not have been built to code and the privateer would have cut corners in the construction of the building.

Yes because in a libertarian society any desire people might have for a house that can withstand earthquakes would just disappear.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

I would just like to make a distinction here, pure libertarian does not mean Rothbardian, that would be pure anarcho-capitalist. I think however that it is in the interest of a builder (and the person paying him) to build something that won't collapse when an earthquake comes, especially if they know the government won't rebuild their building.

Why do you keep saying the gov rebuild or pay to rebuild the house they do not.

Soldie

Boulevardier wrote: »

Soldie, if Mac Jobs and Walmart jobs are not the products of a "top-down approach to the economy" by big business, I don't know what is.

Something cannot be a product of itself. In any case, I don't see what Walmart has to do with anything; large corporations are facilitated by governments, and big government is something that you appear to be in favour of.

In any case, sorry to see you regard schools, hospitals, road-building, defence forces etc. as unproductive industries. I would not agree.

Stimulating aggregate demand simply does not work for the reasons I have previously outlined; real economic growth is based on saving and investment, not simply blank cheque spending.

A Primal Nut

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't we already do that by paying people to queue outside a social welfare office? The same thing as paying people to dig holes and re-fill them. Clearly not good for the economy! But for sure, paying people who are on the dole does create more jobs than if unemployed people weren't paid. I don't think its worth it overall though.

A Primal Nut

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes because in a libertarian society any desire people might have for a house that can withstand earthquakes would just disappear.

But how can the buyer be sure that the builder built the house to withstand earthquakes? There are no consquences for the builder if the house comes down 10 years after he sold it.

The only way I could see it working is that it would have to be part of the contract that the house can withstand earthquakes for the next 30 or 40 years. But can libertarian society enforce contracts?

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes because in a libertarian society any desire people might have for a house that can withstand earthquakes would just disappear.

well im not exactly saying we'd never have the Universal Serial Bus or anything like that but I think you'd see a lot of unnecessary death and destruction as a result of ripping the building codes out from underneath people.

Matt Holck

However, rebuilding after Irene, especially in an economy with high unemployment and underused resources in the construction and building materials industries, will unleash at least $7 billion in new direct private spending—likely more as many folks rebuild larger than before, and the capital stock that emerges will prove more economically useful and productive.

sounds like the people's work was not needed
and therefor there was no reason to pay them
after the disaster, there is work for the people

matthew8

A Primal Nut wrote: »

But how can the buyer be sure that the builder built the house to withstand earthquakes? There are no consquences for the builder if the house comes down 10 years after he sold it.

The only way I could see it working is that it would have to be part of the contract that the house can withstand earthquakes for the next 30 or 40 years. But can libertarian society enforce contracts?

LIbertarian society can enforce contracts.

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes because in a libertarian society any desire people might have for a house that can withstand earthquakes would just disappear.

Just thinking about this today....

What happened during the BP spill then? Eh? Company broke existing regulations - nevermind we'll pretend they don't exist - did they act responsibly? No, they did not. Engineered safeguards weren't functioning properly and the risks that they did foresee, and understood: they ignored.

And then sh*t happened. And the National Guard and the Coast Guard and a bunch of other taxpayer bodies had to clean up the mess, because the Private Sector had barely invested any time or effort into oil spill cleanup of this magnitude.

So no, I still imagine that we'll need some rules and regulations as we go along. Kind of like the Hippocratic oath, but for people that want to build homes that people put their trust in, and that sort of thing. Could you imagine an oil industry void of regulation? I'd be afraid of what I was putting into my Tank let alone what kind of disaster would spring up next. And who would regulate whether or not the pumps at the gas station were properly calibrated? How would I know if I was getting overcharged for 18 gallons of gas when I only pumped 17?

CrystalLettuce

I really think there's a logical leap being implemented here to blame Keynes for this. Making the best out of a bad situation doesn't mean you seek to have that situation occur in the first place. There may be individual supporters of such economics that subscribe to that idea, but I'd side more with the "Disaster Capitalism" when it comes to that.

Overheal

Speaking of Irene-related economic disasters: that bitch wiped out the northwest's pumpkin crop. There will be no halloween this year. Or pumpkin spice lattes.