Yahoo Poll Says 50% Say No....
Here's my vote: If the insurance industry won't make available affordable
flood policies to the homeowners then do not rebuild! As a taxpayer, I am
not interested in subsidizing anyone's flood policies.
If they do make it affordable (not based on 'experience'), you will be
subsidizing them anyway.
Experience ......... profit = premium total - losses - co. expenses +
return on investments
Insurance companies have good years and bad years in property casualty. This
will be a bad year. If you want to keep premiums down, the Gov't will have
to guarantee a return on investment..... so, that means taxpayers will pick
it up.
Too many think as gov't money as being free.... not is it not free, it is
expensive. Probably 1/3rd of program money is eaten up by gov't bureaucratic
costs before it even goes anywhere..... not a good way to do business.
The biggest surprise to me, is a gov't revenue producing center (like
finding tax cheaters) is the first to get cut.... Welfare, gov't health
care, farm subsidizes keep on plodding along, but something that can produce
income gets the axe.
Arne
..
..
"funneemunnee" <> wrote in message
news:cvgUe.15$
> Yahoo Poll Says 50% Say No....
>
>
> Here's my vote: If the insurance industry won't make available affordable
> flood policies to the homeowners then do not rebuild! As a taxpayer, I am
> not interested in subsidizing anyone's flood policies.
>
Arne wrote:
> If they do make it affordable (not based on 'experience'), you will be
> subsidizing them anyway.
>
> Experience ......... profit = premium total - losses - co. expenses +
> return on investments
>
> Insurance companies have good years and bad years in property casualty. This
> will be a bad year. If you want to keep premiums down, the Gov't will have
> to guarantee a return on investment..... so, that means taxpayers will pick
> it up.
Globally insurance is as pretty close to a perfect market as you can
imagine. With certain exceptions it is very hard to see that a
government mandated system would work better.
>
> Too many think as gov't money as being free.... not is it not free, it is
> expensive. Probably 1/3rd of program money is eaten up by gov't bureaucratic
> costs before it even goes anywhere..... not a good way to do business.
I don't actually know what the ratios are. Social Security
Administration it is c. 1%.
Of course private sector procurement has its own inefficiencies as
anyone who has worked in the private sector can tell you: the cost
overruns and admin costs on your typical information technology project
are huge.
For something like the DOD it must be very hard to measure as there is
no 'pure' private market to compare it with (and a lot of what looks
like 'waste' in a civilian organisation in a military context is
actually prudent redundancy and attention to the 'fat' on which
military organisations live and breath).
>
> The biggest surprise to me, is a gov't revenue producing center (like
> finding tax cheaters) is the first to get cut.... Welfare, gov't health
> care, farm subsidizes keep on plodding along, but something that can produce
> income gets the axe.
That's called politics. Tax investigations hit 1). large corporations
2). private business owners. Both of which are major contributors to
political parties and politicians.
As I understand it, the 'show trials' of the IRS in the mid 90s were
largely based on manufactured evidence. The result was a very
significant reduction in IRS investigation of high income taxpayers
(chances of being audited fell by something like ?75%? for the over
$200k class).
Meanwhile efforts to catch welfare cheats (whose average theft is far
less than the average tax evasion) were intensified.
The real cost of tax is the distortion of behaviour of the taxed caused
by the tax system. How much of a loss on the economy this causes is a
matter (of course) of much debate.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"funneemunnee" <> wrote:
>Yahoo Poll Says 50% Say No....
>
>
>Here's my vote: If the insurance industry won't make available affordable
>flood policies to the homeowners then do not rebuild! As a taxpayer, I am
>not interested in subsidizing anyone's flood policies.
I'd guess that the majority of the responders to that poll are about
as knowledgeable as a small puppy when it comes to the role New
Orleans plays in the economy. I.E. that by not rebuilding they are
essentially shutting down the economy of the Midwest until months and
billions are spent upgrading rail[1] and port facilities across the
country. Also, not rebuilding threatens the oil infrastructure.
[1] This is the politically unpalatable one - for a variety of
historical reasons the Feds are typically unwilling to do anything for
the railroads. Very few people realize that railroads are our only
transport medium in which the entire infrastructure is in the hands of
private companies. (Don't bring up Amtrak - Amtrak is essentially
irrelevant when the topic is railraods.)
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
"Derek Lyons" <> wrote
> "funneemunnee" <> wrote:
>
> >Yahoo Poll Says 50% Say No....
>
>
_poll_hk1
> >
> >Here's my vote: If the insurance industry won't make available
affordable
> >flood policies to the homeowners then do not rebuild! As a taxpayer, I
am
> >not interested in subsidizing anyone's flood policies.
>
> I'd guess that the majority of the responders to that poll are about
> as knowledgeable as a small puppy when it comes to the role New
> Orleans plays in the economy. I.E. that by not rebuilding they are
> essentially shutting down the economy of the Midwest until months and
> billions are spent upgrading rail[1] and port facilities across the
> country.
Do you have a citation for this?
From my reading it's not at all as serious as you portend.
> Also, not rebuilding threatens the oil infrastructure.
Oil refineries and port facilities can be built nearby, on higher, safer
ground.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Why? Wait till after it hits..... I understand you are trying to make a
point, but it certainly is a poor way to make it (actually, silly comes to
mind).
I don't want to help pay for people to rebuild in hurricane prone areas any
more than I want to help people rebuild in areas that are scientifically
proven to be earthquake prone..... If someone wants to build on the ocean
front, they should be lumped in with others who build similarly (and pay
accordingly), not with me who is in an area with an extremely small chance
of a natural disaster claiming my home.
Arne
..
..
"PeterL" <> wrote in message >
> Then we should level SF and LA now before the Big One hits.
>
Fine, let them rebuild the port, but everything not connected can go some
place else, or, they can raise the city, as they did in Galveston. But, at
their expense, not mine.
Arne
..
..
"Derek Lyons" <> wrote in message
news:
> "funneemunnee" <> wrote:
>
>>Yahoo Poll Says 50% Say No....
>>
>>
>>Here's my vote: If the insurance industry won't make available affordable
>>flood policies to the homeowners then do not rebuild! As a taxpayer, I am
>>not interested in subsidizing anyone's flood policies.
>
> I'd guess that the majority of the responders to that poll are about
> as knowledgeable as a small puppy when it comes to the role New
> Orleans plays in the economy. I.E. that by not rebuilding they are
> essentially shutting down the economy of the Midwest until months and
> billions are spent upgrading rail[1] and port facilities across the
> country. Also, not rebuilding threatens the oil infrastructure.
>
> [1] This is the politically unpalatable one - for a variety of
> historical reasons the Feds are typically unwilling to do anything for
> the railroads. Very few people realize that railroads are our only
> transport medium in which the entire infrastructure is in the hands of
> private companies. (Don't bring up Amtrak - Amtrak is essentially
> irrelevant when the topic is railraods.)
>
> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
>
> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
"Elle" <> wrote:
>"Derek Lyons" <> wrote
>>
>> I'd guess that the majority of the responders to that poll are about
>> as knowledgeable as a small puppy when it comes to the role New
>> Orleans plays in the economy. I.E. that by not rebuilding they are
>> essentially shutting down the economy of the Midwest until months and
>> billions are spent upgrading rail[1] and port facilities across the
>> country.
>
>Do you have a citation for this?
>
>From my reading it's not at all as serious as you portend.
I don't know who you've been reading - but don't seem to know about
the amount of commerce that flows through New Orlean - to and from the
Midwest. (Including huge amounts of grain outbound and steel
inbound.) The port itself is more-or-less intact, the real problem is
housing for the workers.
>> Also, not rebuilding threatens the oil infrastructure.
>
>Oil refineries and port facilities can be built nearby, on higher, safer
>ground.
There *isn't* any high, safer ground for miles around New Orleans.
And in you didn't notice - the refinery areas aren't flooded. Again,
the issue is the workers.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
"PeterL" <> wrote:
>I think the question really is where instead of why. Rebuild at a
>different location (above sea level?) or not.
Folks don't seem to realize that only a (relatively) small area and a
(relatively) small number of people are flooded out. The overwhelming
amount of damage and danger comes from the wind and storm surge
associated with hurricanes - far more people are out of work or out of
homes (or both), from those causes than the flooding.
The tourism industry is devastated. NASA's future plans are on hold
because an important facility is damaged. The petrochemical industry
is reeling... And few (I.E. virtually none) of those things can be
moved. The economic effects of loss of the port facilities (actually
the loss of housing for the workers, since the port is mostly intact)
won't be felt for a while yet - but they will be felt when the goods
that formerly moved in and out of New Orleans cannot be moved, or must
be diverted to other routes.
To quote from :
"Our thoughts also go out to our colleagues at the many ports in the
Gulf Coast region. These ports are essential to the vitality of our
country's economy and they are a crucial gateway for international
trade from the Midwest along the 14,500 miles of the Mississippi-Ohio
river system. While the total devastation left in the wake of Katrina
is still uncertain, there is no doubt this hurricane will have a
tremendous impact on the U.S. economy and freight transportation. The
New Orleans-Gulf Coast region is home to six of the top 15 tonnage
ports in the nation handling more than 500 million tons of cargo per
year. This is more than the combined total of all waterborne shipments
for the states of California, Florida, New York and Alaska. Indiana
relies on these ports for transloading Hoosier shipments between river
barges and ocean-going ships for international trade. Disruptions are
expected in some Indiana shipments of grain, steel, fertilizer, iron
ore and minerals."
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
"PeterL" <> wrote
> Then we should level SF and LA now before the Big One hits.
I think it would be more acceptable to let the "big one" hit and do the
leveling.
Be a lot cheaper, for sure...
Arne
..
..
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "PeterL" <> wrote
>
>> Then we should level SF and LA now before the Big One hits.
>
> I think it would be more acceptable to let the "big one" hit and do the
> leveling.
>
"Derek Lyons" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote:
>
> >"Derek Lyons" <> wrote
> >>
> >> I'd guess that the majority of the responders to that poll are about
> >> as knowledgeable as a small puppy when it comes to the role New
> >> Orleans plays in the economy. I.E. that by not rebuilding they are
> >> essentially shutting down the economy of the Midwest until months and
> >> billions are spent upgrading rail[1] and port facilities across the
> >> country.
> >
> >Do you have a citation for this?
> >
> >From my reading it's not at all as serious as you portend.
>
> I don't know who you've been reading - but don't seem to know about
> the amount of commerce that flows through New Orlean - to and from the
> Midwest.
So you don't have a citation.
America's economy has not frozen. Other ports have scrambled to make up for
the loss of New Orleans. I'm not saying it's easy, but so far, so good.
> (Including huge amounts of grain outbound and steel
> inbound.) The port itself is more-or-less intact, the real problem is
> housing for the workers.
I could google for information about the status of the port, but you're not
willing to contribute anything concrete here, so why should I bother?
I had a report from a sea captain friend of mine who said that there were
calls for mariners to man ships equipped with cranes to work NOLA, since the
port did not have the capability it had pre-Katrina.
> >> Also, not rebuilding threatens the oil infrastructure.
> >
> >Oil refineries and port facilities can be built nearby, on higher, safer
> >ground.
>
> There *isn't* any high, safer ground for miles around New Orleans.
Higher, Einstein.
> And in you didn't notice - the refinery areas aren't flooded.
My recollection is there was damage.
> Again,
> the issue is the workers.
That is an issue.
Ed wrote:
> "PeterL" <> wrote
>
> > Then we should level SF and LA now before the Big One hits.
>
> I think it would be more acceptable to let the "big one" hit and do the
> leveling.
The Big One has already hit once, in 1906. Or maybe that's not even
the Big One yet.
Thx. I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have written...
(CHANGES IN ALL CAPS)
Here's my vote: If the insurance industry won't OR CAN'T make available
affordable
flood policies to the homeowners then do not rebuild! As a taxpayer, I am
not interested in subsidizing anyone's flood policies.
A stance that points to the original question (or problem) of why in the
world people still live there...
"Arne" <> wrote in message
news:echUe.10826$
> If they do make it affordable (not based on 'experience'), you will be
> subsidizing them anyway.
>
> Experience ......... profit = premium total - losses - co. expenses +
> return on investments
>
> Insurance companies have good years and bad years in property casualty.
> This will be a bad year. If you want to keep premiums down, the Gov't will
> have to guarantee a return on investment..... so, that means taxpayers
> will pick it up.
>
> Too many think as gov't money as being free.... not is it not free, it is
> expensive. Probably 1/3rd of program money is eaten up by gov't
> bureaucratic costs before it even goes anywhere..... not a good way to do
> business.
>
> The biggest surprise to me, is a gov't revenue producing center (like
> finding tax cheaters) is the first to get cut.... Welfare, gov't health
> care, farm subsidizes keep on plodding along, but something that can
> produce income gets the axe.
>
> Arne
> .
> .
> "funneemunnee" <> wrote in message
> news:cvgUe.15$
>> Yahoo Poll Says 50% Say No....
>>
>>
>> Here's my vote: If the insurance industry won't make available
>> affordable flood policies to the homeowners then do not rebuild! As a
>> taxpayer, I am not interested in subsidizing anyone's flood policies.
>>
>
>