7 ms·

To be fair... (and pragmatic) Societies subsidize people who live in flood plains because of agriculture, infrastructure and logistics. Essentially, we get far

by bilbo0s 11y ago

To be fair... (and pragmatic) Societies subsidize people who live in flood plains because of agriculture, infrastructure and logistics. Essentially, we get far more OUT of people living in MOST flood plains than we put in with respect to subsidies. Consider MOST of the coastal cities. We, obviously, get WAY more OUT of Houston, Galveston and New Orleans, for example, than we put in. Those three ports are enormously important to us. If they disappeared tomorrow, you would discover why they were important the hard way. Similarly for people living in midwestern flood plains. We will typically get far more out of them than we put in. Try feeding the world, with currently known agricultural technology, while not using any land in flood plains and you'll see what I mean. Even if you could somehow manage to do it... and I don't think you could.... but even if you could, you would cause enormous damage to the ecological tapestry of the continent. You would have to move MATERIAL amounts of water and soil at a minimum. It's best to subsidize the farmers to do what they do and make sure they're not disturbed in their endeavors. And, yes, many of those farmers and agribusinesses will be in flood plains. Now I'm not saying ALL flood plains in the midwest or on the coast are critical infrastructure. New York, Houston and New Orleans are far more critical to our survival than... say... Miami, Myrtle Beach or Malibu. So obviously, I'm not saying that ALL port cities or ALL midwestern flood plains are critical. But there are definitely some places in this nation that merit sizable subsidies to keep people living and working there. It's the nature of the beast when you're talking about engineering an empire.

jvm 11y ago
For any activities that really are that valuable, there is no need for a subsidy. The revenue from the activity in those cases exceeds the costs of dealing with the disaster. The efficient thing to do is end the subsidy, and have all the less valuable activities whose benefits don't exceed the costs relocate or cease.
- muraiki 11y ago
  Efficiency must be balanced, though. Say that we end the subsidy on agricultural flood plains, which drives up the cost to farmers, who become less competitive vs imported food. They decide to close up shop and do something more profitable, since they can't complete with imports. The end result is an increase in efficiency but a loss of food security. I'm sure other people have thought this through much better than what I just said. But it seems to me to be a reasonable argument.
  - jvm 11y ago
    If your goal is people growing more food relative to baseline, you should subsidize food (which we do, intensively). If your goal is people living in flood zones, you should subsidize living in flood zones (e.g. by insuring it, which we also do). We need an answer to the latter question in this case, not the former. And one is readily at hand: the political interest of those who live in flood zones. Maybe there's some other justification, but I'll confess I'm skeptical that this outcome is globally utility maximizing relative to alternative policies.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  A scholarship is an educational subsidy. Should we issue a moratorium on scholarships? Should we discontinue subsidies for solar energy companies? How about the billions in R&D tax subsidies that we give to pharmaceutical/industrial/healthcare companies each year to develop new drugs, treatments, and machinery? The market doesn't always know what is right. To be more specific: the market is short-sighted and greedy, and can self-destruct an economy if left unregulated. We need to subsidize activities that have large costs in the short term, but return more over the long run to society. Or else they won't happen.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Should we issue a moratorium on scholarships? State funded 'generic' scholarships simply rise the cost of tuition. Good state schools are a much better use of funds as they drive down for profit education costs to be cost competitive. Schools can easily offer scholarships at minimal costs as a form of price discrimination, but public scholarships tend to simply result in administrative bloat. Should we discontinue subsidies for solar energy companies? Yes, instead we should tax CO2 production instead of subsidizing two industry's. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality How about the billions in R&D tax subsidies that we give to pharmaceutical/industrial/healthcare companies each year to develop new drugs, treatments, and machinery? These should also be stopped, it's fine to fund public R&D but private R&D has terrible ROI. Drug companies spend more on advertising than R&D and really don't need help. For a solid example, the US could have a 10 year strategic food reserve for 1/10th the cost of current agro subsidies that directly result in massive health issues. PS I agree that markets are often inefficient, but subsidies then to be horrible ways to correct them. Taxes tend to be much more efficient.
    - roymurdock 11y ago
      Taxes and subsidies are two sides of the same coin. They are often used in conjunction to achieve specific policy ends. If you are pro taxes, you are pro subsidies. Perhaps not on the specific, case-by-case basis, but overall you are arguing for free market distortion through the yin and yang of government policy. I won't address your specific points as everyone has different opinions on policy, but no one has the data to rigorously defend their opinions. I simply want to refute the notion that we can allow free markets to allocate all resources within the economy.
- briandear 11y ago
  So a worker that works in Houston ought not have flood protection? Who pays when his house floods? "Industry?" Then prices rise for everyone instead of isolating the risk to those that choose to buy flood insurance.
photosinensis 11y ago
Houston and New York are also designed with an expectation that those cities will flood. Most buildings in Houston, for example, forgo a basement and instead have a collecting vault underneath them that the rain drains into and from (and leaves more slowly and sustainably). There are fields set aside to ensure that there's land that can flood with minimal impact. County flood control districts will buy up property just to let it be undeveloped. There are ways to mitigate the risks of living in a flood plain while still reaping the benefits.
- gaadd33 11y ago
  How are buildings in NYC designed with an expectation that they will flood? I haven't seen much of that, especially pre-Sandy. Post-Sandy there are some buildings with mounting brackets for walls/sandbags if there's another flood but that's not really designed in.
WalterBright 11y ago
Most floods are only a few inches deep. It isn't expensive to simply build the house up a foot or two, or bulldoze a mound and put the house on that. It'll greatly reduce the probability and severity of flood damage.
- esmi 11y ago
  And, consequently, your flood insurance premium. http://realestate.heraldtribune.com/2014/02/15/bubil-facing-flood-insurance-crisis-you-could-lift-your-home/ http://realestate.heraldtribune.com/2014/02/15/bubil-facing-...
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    Yup. I remember a few years back when the Mississippi flooded again, there was a news helicopter video shot of the inundated farmland. What stood out, literally, was one farm house high and dry that had been built on a bulldozed mound.

by bilbo0s 11y ago

jvm 11y ago

For any activities that really are that valuable, there is no need for a subsidy. The revenue from the activity in those cases exceeds the costs of dealing with the disaster. The efficient thing to do is end the subsidy, and have all the less valuable activities whose benefits don't exceed the costs relocate or cease.

muraiki 11y ago
Efficiency must be balanced, though. Say that we end the subsidy on agricultural flood plains, which drives up the cost to farmers, who become less competitive vs imported food. They decide to close up shop and do something more profitable, since they can't complete with imports. The end result is an increase in efficiency but a loss of food security. I'm sure other people have thought this through much better than what I just said. But it seems to me to be a reasonable argument.
- jvm 11y ago
  If your goal is people growing more food relative to baseline, you should subsidize food (which we do, intensively). If your goal is people living in flood zones, you should subsidize living in flood zones (e.g. by insuring it, which we also do). We need an answer to the latter question in this case, not the former. And one is readily at hand: the political interest of those who live in flood zones. Maybe there's some other justification, but I'll confess I'm skeptical that this outcome is globally utility maximizing relative to alternative policies.
roymurdock 11y ago
A scholarship is an educational subsidy. Should we issue a moratorium on scholarships? Should we discontinue subsidies for solar energy companies? How about the billions in R&D tax subsidies that we give to pharmaceutical/industrial/healthcare companies each year to develop new drugs, treatments, and machinery? The market doesn't always know what is right. To be more specific: the market is short-sighted and greedy, and can self-destruct an economy if left unregulated. We need to subsidize activities that have large costs in the short term, but return more over the long run to society. Or else they won't happen.
- Retric 11y ago
  Should we issue a moratorium on scholarships? State funded 'generic' scholarships simply rise the cost of tuition. Good state schools are a much better use of funds as they drive down for profit education costs to be cost competitive. Schools can easily offer scholarships at minimal costs as a form of price discrimination, but public scholarships tend to simply result in administrative bloat. Should we discontinue subsidies for solar energy companies? Yes, instead we should tax CO2 production instead of subsidizing two industry's. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality How about the billions in R&D tax subsidies that we give to pharmaceutical/industrial/healthcare companies each year to develop new drugs, treatments, and machinery? These should also be stopped, it's fine to fund public R&D but private R&D has terrible ROI. Drug companies spend more on advertising than R&D and really don't need help. For a solid example, the US could have a 10 year strategic food reserve for 1/10th the cost of current agro subsidies that directly result in massive health issues. PS I agree that markets are often inefficient, but subsidies then to be horrible ways to correct them. Taxes tend to be much more efficient.
  - roymurdock 11y ago
    Taxes and subsidies are two sides of the same coin. They are often used in conjunction to achieve specific policy ends. If you are pro taxes, you are pro subsidies. Perhaps not on the specific, case-by-case basis, but overall you are arguing for free market distortion through the yin and yang of government policy. I won't address your specific points as everyone has different opinions on policy, but no one has the data to rigorously defend their opinions. I simply want to refute the notion that we can allow free markets to allocate all resources within the economy.
briandear 11y ago
So a worker that works in Houston ought not have flood protection? Who pays when his house floods? "Industry?" Then prices rise for everyone instead of isolating the risk to those that choose to buy flood insurance.

photosinensis 11y ago

Houston and New York are also designed with an expectation that those cities will flood. Most buildings in Houston, for example, forgo a basement and instead have a collecting vault underneath them that the rain drains into and from (and leaves more slowly and sustainably). There are fields set aside to ensure that there's land that can flood with minimal impact. County flood control districts will buy up property just to let it be undeveloped. There are ways to mitigate the risks of living in a flood plain while still reaping the benefits.

gaadd33 11y ago
How are buildings in NYC designed with an expectation that they will flood? I haven't seen much of that, especially pre-Sandy. Post-Sandy there are some buildings with mounting brackets for walls/sandbags if there's another flood but that's not really designed in.

WalterBright 11y ago

Most floods are only a few inches deep. It isn't expensive to simply build the house up a foot or two, or bulldoze a mound and put the house on that. It'll greatly reduce the probability and severity of flood damage.

esmi 11y ago
And, consequently, your flood insurance premium. http://realestate.heraldtribune.com/2014/02/15/bubil-facing-flood-insurance-crisis-you-could-lift-your-home/ http://realestate.heraldtribune.com/2014/02/15/bubil-facing-...
- WalterBright 11y ago
  Yup. I remember a few years back when the Mississippi flooded again, there was a news helicopter video shot of the inundated farmland. What stood out, literally, was one farm house high and dry that had been built on a bulldozed mound.