- Joined
- 29 Aug 06
- Moves
- 6848
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNew Orleans is home to one of the largest and busiest ports in the world, accounts for a major portion of the nation's refinery and production of petroleum. - wikipedia
New Orleans hasn't been important economically since the 1920s. (snip) The best thing to do is not spend another federal dime on the Big Sleazy.
As important, no. Still important, yes. Let me make solely an economic argument for you.
The cost of protecting it proper, while expensive, is several orders of magnitudes less than rebuilding everything somewhere else. And several orders of magnitudes less than the economic cost to the nation (non-Orleans residents) that would be incurred during the disruption that would be required to do what you say.
In short: It makes economic sense to protect it.
- Joined
- 29 Aug 06
- Moves
- 6848
01 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIn this case, yes. New Orleans is economically important enough to NON-New Orleans residents that it is worth doing, irregardless of the value of it provides to New Orleans residents themselves.
So the country should support the lions share rather than the people of the state?
It would be interesting to know how many federal dollars that have poured into New Orleans have actually gone to defending the inevitable. My guess is slim to none.
This is just me looking out for my personal economic interests.
02 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SickboyThat's a damn good post! However, it's not the nation's responsibility to replace private capital, is it?
New Orleans is home to one of the largest and busiest ports in the world, accounts for a major portion of the nation's refinery and production of petroleum. - wikipedia
[b]As important, no. Still important, yes. Let me make solely an economic argument for you.
The cost of protecting it proper, while expensive, is several orders of magnit ...[text shortened]... uld be required to do what you say.
In short: It makes economic sense to protect it.[/b]
- Joined
- 29 Aug 06
- Moves
- 6848
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungno. but as a citizen who will be impacted if New Orleans isn't protected to a degree where it is cheaper to make sure it is protected than suffer the consequences.
That's a damn good post! However, it's not the nation's responsibility to replace private capital, is it?
The entire country (not just the displaced New Orleans), suffered significant economic consequence after Katrina. The entire country suffered significant consequence after 9/11. Our economic system is so interdependent on these events that it is cheap insurance, certainly in the case of New Orleans, to build some better levees. If you want to tax New Orleans to raise the money, ok. But I think the federal government should insure that it gets done (ie, if New Orleans can't or won't pay up, it gets done anyway).
This isn't unusual. It's not the "nation's" job to make sure banks don't fail, but we insure the deposits anyway because we have learned as a nation that it's in our best interest to do so.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by SickboyYeah, I know the government does this kind of thing. I really need to read up on economics when I get time. I'm very, very interested in it, but I've only had one microeconomics class and done very little reading outside of it.
no. but as a citizen who will be impacted if New Orleans isn't protected to a degree where it is cheaper to make sure it is protected than suffer the consequences.
The entire country (not just the displaced New Orleans), suffered significant economic consequence after Katrina. The entire country suffered significant consequence after 9/11. Our economic ...[text shortened]... ts anyway because we have learned as a nation that it's in our best interest to do so.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by shavixmirYou poor, pitiful, deluded creature: National defense is a core duty of the federal government; paying for or subsidizing flood insurance for people who live along the cost is not.
I think Sickboy's answer is more than adequate.
Anyways, how come I need to pay taxes to support the armies you want so you can invade countries I've never heard of?
And how come I need to pay taxes so the police can defend property I don't think you have any right of having?
See. Tax goes around and comes around. Or so it should.
If you don't lik ...[text shortened]... oy your well spent dollars.
But you probably just don't like that nigga music, do you?
02 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SickboyOutside of a few thousand petroleum and refining jobs, the majority of the city's employers are tourism. Also, the vast majority of poor people living in pre-Katrina New Orleans were on welfare -- that's why they refused to leave when the evacuation order was finally given...they wanted to get their check on Monday and cash it. It doesn't make sense to rebuild the city to it's previous level.
New Orleans is home to one of the largest and busiest ports in the world, accounts for a major portion of the nation's refinery and production of petroleum. - wikipedia
[b]As important, no. Still important, yes. Let me make solely an economic argument for you.
The cost of protecting it proper, while expensive, is several orders of magnit ...[text shortened]... uld be required to do what you say.
In short: It makes economic sense to protect it.[/b]
02 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SickboyJust add it to my bill. With these kind of tax increases retty soon it will make no sense whatsoever to work at all.
Given it's immense import to the entire country (not just New Orleans), my answer would be the federal government would have to support the lion's share. Local taxes probably can also be used.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Also, the vast majority of poor people living in pre-Katrina New Orleans were on welfare -- that's why they refused to leave when the evacuation order was finally given...they wanted to get their check on Monday and cash it.
100,000 people stayed behind because they wanted to go down to the unemployment office (even though it was closed due to the evacuation) and get a cheque.
Man, you really are delusional.
03 Sep 08
Originally posted by EladarI say that everyone that needs bailed out should move there. For example, people who work for Sally Mae, Bear Sterns, MBI, etc. should all move there. Just sit back and watch Uncle Sam print money hand over fist to make everything right again.
If you want to live there, the US government should bail you out every time you get flooded out. It is going to happen, you choose to live there. Suffer the consequences.[/b]
03 Sep 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydHe is a flaming liberal democrat. As a result, he does not have to be accountable for anything he does and simply blames the President for anything wrong that does occur.
Gotta love Ray Nagin 🙂 "The mother of all storms" he announced turned out to be a category 1 fizzle. I can't believe he's still in office.
