Why is New Orleans in so much worse shape today than New York City was after the attacks on Sept. 11?
The short answer is that New York was attacked by fire, not water.
(NYTimes 3/9/05)
Although i'm in America, my blogging is not obsessed by the monstrous natural disaster caused by Katrina, nor the compounding destruction caused by the Hobbesian people that are creating a barbaric cradle of anarchy. The reason I don't feel qualified to give my opinion, stems from my reluctance to see everything in national terms: just because I find myself within the same political entity, doesn't add to any claim of legitimacy. After all, the news coverage is (typically) woeful. For example the President visited yesterday, and as far as I'm aware the people on the streets of downtown New Orleans had no reason to have known that he was there. And yet Fox news claim his presence is a real boon, and that "there's nothing more majestic than the sight of Air Force One"...
Such is the internet - and the free movement of information which is breeds - my location counts for squat. But I will Filter^ one article, quoted at the top. John Tierney makes an excellent point, regarding the wisdom of a national government subsidising people to live in flood-prone areas. Whereas a private insurance market for fire protection exists - and consequently the quantity of fire fighters and ability to deal with catastrophe, we can chalk the aftermath of New Orleans to yet another example of how government's interference in a price mechanism fosters and encourages suboptimal choices.
Found via Tim Worstall
Recent Comments