"Storm surge barriers, the huge sea gates that some scientists say would be the best protection against floods, could cost as much as $10 billion."
Meanwhile, according to the IRS, the 35,000 New York households who make over $1 million have a total annual income of $135 billion.
Just saying.
But, if productive people subsidize flood defence for lazy and undeserving (LU) people, not only LUs will not have an incentive to become more productive but, in the event of a natural disaster, most of them would survive, thus blocking the invisible hand of (social?) Darwinism.
ReplyDeleteNice to see a new post.
Random Lurker misses your obvious point.
ReplyDeleteWe can all agree that $10 billion is far too much for the dead hand of the state to spend on storm surge barriers for many reasons, including RLs.
So there is a market opportunity here for those with money to invest. I fully expect that, as the driving force behind today's economy, New York's wealth creators and job creators will innovate to produce individualized storm surge barriers that can be erected around single family homes, solving the flood problem and creating a new and vibrant market where there was not one before.
According to the laws of economics, if there was a clear profit possibility, some rational actor would have had caught that possibility before.
DeleteHence, the absence of flood defences shows that it would be unrational (or unprofitable, but it's the same) to build some.
That, or the market isn't rational, presumably because of some goodhearthed but ultimately silly government intervention, such as ome socialized form of flood prevention, that masks the real incentives to market partecipants.
Is there any problem that can't be solved with more expropriation?
ReplyDeleteOne trend over the course my life that surprises me is the complete loss of self-confidence on the part of the American middle class. Thirty years ago, if you asked members of the American middle class who created the wealth, they would have said "us". Now they say, "the rich". The idea that taxes the rich is necessarily expropriation only makes sense in an environment where people have lost the dignity of their own sense of self-worth.
Delete"Is there any problem that can't be solved with more expropriation?"
DeleteNo.
If we restrict to public goods, the answer is clearly "no".
DeleteTo be fair, a comrade pointed out to me recently that the free market *does* have a solution to the provision of nonexcludable public goods like lighthouses, storm surge barriers, etc.: advertising! If we just allow it to be the Met Life barrier, our problem is solved, no expropriation required.
ReplyDeleteIn related news: http://jhhuebert.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/In-Defense-of-Advertising-in-Space.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou have great knowledge and expertise in writing such blogs.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a really good blog, but I’ve collected the best news. right here.
ReplyDeleteThanks to your writing, I am very happy to complete the process now.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really great contest and hopefully I can attend the next one.
ReplyDelete