4 ms·
OK, so after the homes of the elites are gone, then is it okay to do something about this? Like, what is the cutoff point where it's okay to help people who los
by draw_down 10y ago
OK, so after the homes of the elites are gone, then is it okay to do something about this? Like, what is the cutoff point where it's okay to help people who lost their homes? To me this just seems like "not our problem", and not just a refusal to subsidize elites. Which I suppose is a fine position to take except all the other ways we as a nation are comfortable bailing out businesses and individuals. It is... interesting to observe the times people support that and the times they don't.
- bilbo0s 10y agoCan't speak for other people obviously, but my take on it is utilitarian. Houston, we bail out if needed. Because we need Houston. New Orleans, we bail out if needed. Because we need New Orleans. There are several ports on the East, West and Gulf coasts that fall into the "we need them" category. The rest we don't need, so we would not subsidize their rescue unless extra money was available from somewhere. Myrtle Beach and Miami are just not as important as NIT (Norfolk) and Portland. And higher up the urgency ladder are places like Houston and New Orleans, that must be saved and held at any cost.
- guelo 10y agoAre you saying we need Houston and New Orleans because of their importance to the energy industry? The same energy industry that's causing global warming.
- ItsDeathball 10y agoMost of the Midwestern agricultural products exported overseas get transshipped from river barges or trains to oceangoing ships at New Orleans. Likewise, Houston is a major container port for finished goods. We need these ports for their value as ports. Condemning these ports over some moral judgement for a portion of their throughput shouldn't have any bearing on this kind of cost-benefit analysis.