Sandy Stories

Comment about Sandy from around the web:

"Back in 1635, a major hurricane hit the northeast. It's estimated that it hit Long Island as a category 4 hurricane, and then hit between Plymouth and Boston as a category 3. Landfall pressure is estimated to have been 938mb, the strongest ever for a storm that far north.

One day, that's going to happen again (or the 1938 Long Island Express will happen again, or the 1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane will happen again...), and it will be far worse than Sandy. And that doesn't even take into account the thought that one day, a hurricane similar to the 1938 Long Island Express will go directly into Lower Manhattan and leave JFK Airport under 20 feet of water.

I'd really love to see the claims that would come out of THAT kind of storm."

***

Sandy has brought out all the statists. The NYT (which should be rebranced NYBOAPT - New York Bend Over And Assume The Position Times) wrote how "A big storm requires a big government." It's all very blah, blah and the sheep that make up the Times readership made sure to back up the article.

Personally, I find it howlingly hilarious that a top-down approach to local disasters is seen as good.

It's plain illogical. The first responders are the locals. They know the surroundings - geopgraphy, topograhpy, people etc. - better than anyone. Let them run the show first. Big government may have the cash but it doesn't necessarily have the resources to efficiently respond in a timely manner.

The way I see it you have a storm. Locals (including government officials) get together to plot how to deal with it. Would you like it if some people from Washington came and took over the operation? Makes no sense. Smaller is leaner, meaner and more agile.

***

Bah. Making the case for big government is nothing new for the lost left.

What irritates more is listening to the 'diasters are great for the economy' Vaudville routine some academics espouse.

Peter Morici from the School of Business at the University of Maryland thinks Sandy is a business opportunity.

I'm just going with my gut logic here. When you shut down an economy the money lost is LOST forever. It can't be regained or quantified as he points out - thankfully. We saw this first hand in Montreal when the boob students went on strike and cost local businesses hundreds of millions of dollars  all lost. No 'rebuilding there. Just a bunch of small businesses finding it harder to make payroll and pay rent for nothing. Strike One.

So businesses begin in a hole x-amount for lost business. Next comes actual damages caused by Sandy estimated to be at $25-$50 billion. Morici claims reconstruction (by federal authorities of course) will generate something in the neighborhood of $27-$36 billion. Excuse my math, but where's the gain?

Ma get outta here!

He concludes this question this way:

"All of this is not to discount the direct costs to individuals by temporary, and in some cases permanent, disruption to lives and communities, much of which cannot be quantified. However, when government authorities facilitate rebuilding quickly and effectively, the process of economic renewal, in many tangible ways, can leave communities better off than before.

Factoring in the multiplier effect of $15-$20 billion spent rebuilding yields an economic benefit from reconstruction of about $27-$36 billion. Add to that the gains from more a more modern and productive capital stock-likely in the range of $10 billion -- and consumer and business spending that is only delayed but not permanently lost, likely in the range of $12 billion -- and the total effects of natural disasters of the scale of Sandy are not as devastating two years down the road."

In other words, taxpayers will pay for all this Insurance will increase. It's growth by other means only it's not growth. It's just shifting money from one side to the other.

Then there's the whole logic problem. Why not flatten things to the ground every few years? Fuck, knock out the country! Nuke it!

No one disputes you can put up fancier bathrooms but the cost of destruction is far, far, greater than the benefits of construction. Start with the psychological trauma and move from there. Then there's all the messy unintended consequences issue.

It's the "Broken Window Fallacy" and it stinks.

Speaking of fallacies, isn't that Krugman roaming the streets yelling, 'StiMULUS! YES!"