Asymmetrical Information

I am fully in favor of helping the people who lived in New Orleans who have lost their homes, jobs and possessions. But... I don't think we should spend billions of dollars cleaning up and reconstructing a city that is going to require that we spend more billions of dollars to maintain an adequate levee system. I would prefer to recognize that it's not smart to have a city situated on a major river delta, and therefore... just don't do it.

So why is everyone assuming that we should tax the entire country to rebuild New Orleans?

Notice in all the statistics there's no mention of how many children were living in intact families before the storm. Also, no one ever mentions another powerful reason for people to stay behind: looting. The pickings were good, and if you started drowning, you could just shoot at a rescue helicopter. And now the American taxpayer's pockets are going to be picked for the next fifty years to restore this pathetic excuse for a city until the next storm washes it away for good.

Lara,

I had exactly the same thought. Two reasons that I can think of.

One, that the full extent of this disaster (i.e., the economic fallout) has not yet become apparent, and that as it does the American people may panic. And that the government is aware of the extent of the damage, and thus this is a preemptive action on their part along the lines of, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Two, the federal government is just trying to prove the need for its existance by doing something grand.

Both possibilities scare the hell out of me.

I heard an intersting anecdote (not sure it is true). A guy was trapped in his house, and evidently wanted to leave, but everytime a helicopter flew in to pluck him off of his roof he shooed it away and went back inside. When rescuers finally extracted him by boat they asked why he would not get on the chopper. He said he couldn't afford it. He knew an ambulance ride was well outside of his budget, so a helicopter ride must be ridiculous! The guy actually thought he would have to pay for his rescue.

Isn't there some incentive for people to say that they didn't have the resources or didn't now that they were supposed to? The alternatives sounds pretty silly in hindsight.

Lara, 'places' have intangible value to people, even when the geographical situation isn't particularly wise. Ask an environmental psychology researcher. Ask the Dutch. For that matter, ask a south/central Californian.

Many, many people have been displaced from New Oreleans, some of whom will make a mission out of returning to the life they had, and some of whom may see the handwriting on the water and permanently relocate (but at a significant economic cost during the transition). Thus the money is going to be spent one way or the other.

In sheer engineering terms it may be dumb to rebuild a city that will always be a lake in search of fulfilment, but in social terms it may be even dumber to force people out (or simply refuse to help and letting the chips fall where they may, resulting in numerous holdouts living in the bizarre amalgum of a third-world infrastructure and a wild west social-political climate).

Anony-mouse,

I think you and I have generally diametrically opposed viewpoints on things, but I have been attempting to draft a response to Lara and failing meserably.

Thank you for doing the work for me.

Oh, I dunno Kate...perhaps the problem is that aside from ocassional food discussions, Jane rarely posts on topics where we might have commonality.

For example, a good friend of mine is a female IP lawyer. She stands just a bit more to your right, but hey... ;-)

People I know in several places who are working with Displaced Persons/Refugees/Victims of Chimpy McBushHitler's Evil Plot (pick one or more) tell me that the people who left a house/business/job behind in N'Awlins tend to want to return, while people who left a Section 8 or public housing apartment and a lousy job behind are in many cases looking for work where they are, while others want to get back closer to 'home', and others are just trying to reunite with family. Nobody has been able to offer up a 'typical person', btw, they note that many are individuals...

This seems to be true from Baton Rouge to Houston/Dallas/San Antonio Texas even as far as Albuquoiky (no word from Bugs Bunny about that wrong turn).

College students have been relocated to a whole bunch of places; there are students strewn across public uni's in Texas and Oklahoma, as well as Alabama and Georgia. Some are eager to get back to the Mississippi valley, others are seeing the world and like it.

Of course, freelance dealers in recreational chemicals, purveyors of intimate personal services, as well as freelance socialists of various sorts are just 'doing their thing' wherever they are and will move on when/if The Man makes life too difficult. Some "refugees" have shown up driving expensive cars with no registration, insurance or title...

Robert (2nd comment) touches on a point I haven't seen anyone else discuss, regarding the reasons people didn't evacuate.

The media has suggested that the 100k people who stayed in NO were too poor to evacuate, had no transport, etc. I agree with Robert, that some people stayed behind to loot. And if you lived in NO and knew people would be staying behind to loot, wouldn't that tempt you to stay behind to protect your stuff?

I can imagine a situation where there were so many potential looters, and so many people staying behind to protect their property, that practically no one would evacuate. Obviously things weren't that bad in NO, but it did have a notoriously high crime rate.

[I don't get Robert's "... if you started drowning, you could just shoot at a rescue helicopter." Presumably this would make the helicopter go away, and let you drown in peace?]

Dear busy Jane,

I want to know if you're too busy to have responded to e-mail yet, or I got spam-blocked, or something else.

I sent you my copy of the Red Cross donation. Did you receive it?

-- Michigander

The needs of the people who lived in New Orleans are no more important than the needs of the people who live in Chicago or Cleveland. The people of New Orleans do not have a right to the product of the labors these other people. That is why the people in the rest of the country should not be forced to subsidize New Orleans. Although, I am very happy to see that so many people in the United States (and around the world) are trying to help out these displaced people, and I have contributed money myself, but that is a voluntary contribution. And I am also happy that the government is helping out the displaced people, even though I know I will eventually have to pay higher taxes as a result.

But at the same time, I am much less enthusiastic about having the government put the people back there. The long term effect of that decision would be to ensure the continuation of the economic burden, and also the future need to go through this horrid exercise again.

So in response to the concern that many people will want to return, I think that's just too bad. Lots of people grow up in small towns and they eventually have to move away due to economic circumstances. Sometimes people have to move, that's just the way life is.

Here is the difference that I see between California and New Orleans. The dangers in California can best be addressed through more stringent building codes. This makes roads and buildings more expensive to build, but I think that most of this cost is paid for locally. So if people want to live in California, they bear the cost of earthquake insurance, etc. as well as the higher costs and taxes associated with the more expensive infrastructure.

But as far as I know, the costs of the levee system on the Mississippi are mostly paid for with federal money, not with local money. In fact, the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana in particular could have contributed extra money to securing the levees and floodwalls around New Orleans, but instead they waited for the federal government to agree to pay for it. Yes, there is the issue of keeping the Mississippi as a navigable river, which is in the economic interests of many states, but that is separate from the expensive system specifically needed to maintain the city of New Orleans, and in fact the need to secure the city of New Orleans probably complicates the task of keeping the Mississippi river navigable.

And the difference between Holland and New Orleans... Holland is a small country, and as far as I know, much of it is below sea level. The people there don't have any place else to go. But the United States is a large country with plenty of land. And the people of New Orleans are already somewhere else.

In fact, from what I understand, the environmental situation in New Orleans (in terms of toxic chemicals) is bad enough that they are not going to be able to safely return for a long time. If they go back too soon, in our litigous society, you will soon see lawsuits about children born there with birth defects, etc.

Lara, your entire post strikes me as one long argument for the extreme version of federalism -- one which, I might add, does not exist now and is not likely to exist in the future. Cut off taxpayer funding for rebuilding New Orleans on the basis of the principles you have outlined, and there is subsequently no logical barrier to cutting off federal funding of one-third or better of all US states. But it's not going to happen.

Also, you might also want to double-check that map of continental Europe -- last I checked, there was a pretty sizable chunk of land behind Holland. The point of that example was, people have more reasons than just pure pragmatics for living in a particular region, and you are going to be hard put to divorce them from it. Attempts to do so anyway may yield a worse outcome.

Half or better of the contigious forty-eight's landmass arguably constitutes dumb place to build on account of possible natural disaster risks; and yet here we are.

Comments are Closed.