I was born and raised in New Orleans, as were both of my parents and three of my four grandparents. (My dad’s father was born in 1900 to a French-speaking cajun family who lived in the swamps about a hundred miles west of New Orleans.) So you’ll forgive my inordinate interest in the progress of the rebuilding of my hometown during the three years since the levees broke there.
This hot-off-the-press publication of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University provides an excellent and unique perspective on the rebuilding efforts.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 17 comments }
how's it working? i mean, mercatus gives those seminars on capital hill, which legislative staffers and buearucrats attend, but do you see any of it sinking in? Could a FEMA buearucrat read the article by strobel and leeson in the magazine above, which is clear, compelling, and unassailably correct, and still go to work the next day? unless they already know that their mission is not actual disaster relief, that their mission is to make it appear that the government is "doing something" and is more akin to a jobs program that can be justified with some kind of appeal to the "public good", then they would be forced to conclude that they can do a better job providing disaster relief if they closed their doors and shuttered the whole endeavor. and once tuned into the concept of the knowledge problem, and presented with the stark evidence of the planners fatal conceit, in katrina's case it really was fatal, if they did not go back to work the next day and start to release control and roll back their own scope, they would have to be cynical, and self-interested in the worst sense of the word. so, have you seen any glimmer of recognition in the face of a young politician in waiting, any sign that a wanna-be planner will abandon their plan? or is it all mock revulsion as you outline the limits of their capacity to do good works and then they go home and invent rationalizations why you were wrong or why they are special and different?
sobel and leeson, i mean
Post suggestion:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0819sm.html
New Jersey's Decline.
Oops the link:
New Jersey's Going off the Cliff
From the article on NJ:
"In the middle of a recession…raised taxes and fees…also passed a heap of labor-friendly, antibusiness laws that rapidly worsened conditions."
That sure as heck sounds a lot like Obama's plan for the country.
You should have your students read the article on Wal Mart before you give your lecture demonstrating that higher prices are necessary to induce supplies into a disaster area.
If Wal Mart and other big box retailers do such a great job of resupplying disaster areas at their "everyday low prices" what does it say about your "THEORY" that higher prices by the proverbial guy in the pick up truck is a great example of modern capitalism at work.
On second thought,it may be more important for you to read it then for them to read it.
May be it could get you to quit preaching your simple theories that have little or no relevance to real life.
spencer – you mean we can stop having to hear about Marxist theory?
Spencer,
What are you saying exactly? Are you saying that the opportunity for profit at higher prices don't actually bring in the resources? That this idea is just theory but it doesn't really work that way? That is interesting because I have a friend here in SC that lived for about 6 months in Louisiana and Mississippi following Katrina because he could make such good money there. His behavior was perfectly consistent with the theory.
How do you explain that?
Steve
Spencer: "May be it could get you to quit preaching your simple theories that have little or no relevance to real life."
I think the people of New Orleans and Florida would disagree with you on the irrelevance of how supplies for reconstruction get brought into the area. Do you actually think Wal-Mart's rebuilding with low prices contradict the idea that the opportunity for high profits induce reconstruction? Wow.
Do we really need a city that is below sea level and regularly gets hit with category 3-5 hurricanes?
"Do we really need a city that is below sea level and regularly gets hit with category 3-5 hurricanes?"
First not all of New Orleans is below sea level, Okay?
Second, why stop with New Orleans? Why does the government keep insuring people in flood zones, repeatedly?
Then there is Florida! Remember Andrew? The whole damn state, "Regularly gets hit with category 3-5 hurricanes?" Screw them, too.
Don't forget about tornado ally! If you are stupid enough to live where your home and business can get sucked up and distributed about that that's your problem.
Worried about the next big one on the West coast? Well, do we really need any of those cities along that fault?
Have I missed anybody? Come on, buddy, carry your argument forward logically. There just might be some sensible ground between screw them all and save them all.
Mac, it isn't about screwing them, it is about everyone else not paying for their decision to live there. To pick up your examples, why should people who live in nice places with non-violent environments pay for those who choose to live where they know it floods, or has hurricanes, or tornadoes?
Have you ever noticed that houses in flood zones are rarely if ever built on 5' stilts? Why is that? They know it will flood sooner or later, and in other places on Earth where that happens the people put their houses on stilts so when the waters rise, their house is still dry. But we can't manage that here?
The answer is of course that we can, but when the government provides flood insurance at rates vastly below what pays for itself, people don't need to live in slightly less convenient houses. Someone else will foot the bill for rebuilding them. So they do not make smart decisions, but rather build houses that are not flood resistant in areas that habitually flood.
So the sensible ground you are looking for is "Make them pay their own way, instead of having us bail them out so they can live in questionable places."
Yea Hammer!
Make them pay their own way IS my way, too. I just happen to live in South Louisiana, in a house on piers.
However, it is the government that got many of these people in trouble in the first place. Putting up the levees and draining the land and repeatedly offering flood insurance. Therefore I feel it should help them get out: Either elevating their homes or in some instances buying out their property so they can move. Re-insuring and rebuilding as it was is sheer stupidity. In a nearby community, Delcambre, many have chosen not to return after Rita. This small town was flooded worst than New Orleans. Many have raised their homes and most new construction is real easy to spot. Its the house on a mini-hill. Still government can be really be beyond stupid. The high school flooded badly for Rita. FEMA offered eight million to relocate and build a new school and six million to refurbish the existing school. (Why even offer to fix old school?) Guess what the community wanted and got?
Justin — nice try.
But I am able to recognize when people are trying to change the subject and answer a different question than the one I raised.
Just like I recognize that Don is misapplying
theory to justify preconceived conclusions.
Spencer,
Did you actually raise a question?
Let's avoid that for now and do a thought experiment. After a disaster, are regular — regular to the extent that they can be somewhat forecasted — patterns of demand changed after a disaster?
If "yes", then is it safe to assume that, in the aggregate, demand for most everything increases?
If so, what mechanism other than price is going to handle the supplying the entire willing-to-purchase market. If price at retailers were to remain unchanged, someone will buy goods just to resell them around the corner at the true market price.
There's only two things that will get goods to market after a disaster so that the new demand pattern is met: quest to profit (from businesses or individuals willing to temporarily bring goods to market) or an established business' willingness to meet demand at regular price to build good-will for future loyalty and business. The second scenario is still a quest for profit when you really think about it.
Have I misapplied anything, Spencer?