6 ms·

Take a hard look at the subsidies you are benefiting from. Be ready to give them up if you’re going to take the holier than thou route.

vpribish 8y ago
Tu quoque much?
stickfigure 8y ago
Maybe the whole country would be better if everyone was willing to give up these sorts of unsustainable subsidies? We (society as a whole) have an economic mechanism for protecting against risk - insurance. In places where insurance is too expensive or not available at all, perhaps we should consider letting nature take over.
- smallnamespace 8y ago
  One persons's 'unsustainable subsidy' is another person's 'showing compassion for those who are less fortunate'. It's not like New Orleans is a particularly affluent area either, and people have lived there for a very long time. Take health insurance—one view could be that it forces people who are healthier to subsidize those who are less healthy. While some people are unhealthy due to factors outside of control, others are unhealthy because they do unhealthy things. Would you consider the latter an 'unsustainable subsidy'?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - pm90 8y ago
    Wait what? You're comparing healthcare, which is a necessity, to choosing to live in a particular city. People that need healthcare don't have a choice, people _do_ have a choice to relocate to a more sustainable city though. I agree with you that NOLA isn't just the wealthy. But, that doesn't change the fact that its not a sustainable city to live in.
    - xapata 8y ago
      Don't a large number of people have health problems as a result of poor diet and lack of exercise? I think that would qualify as a choice. I know I could probably lower my cholesterol with more discipline. If I choose not to, it's reasonable for me to pay higher insurance premiums.
    - smallnamespace 8y ago
      I'm reacting to the harsh, judgmental attitude towards people in NOLA and using health care insurance to point out that the world is complicated. Some people are certainly unhealthy because of choices they made (yet there's still broad support for universal risk sharing), while some people in NOLA certainly aren't there by choice. The poverty rate there is about twice the US average, and something like 40% of Americans don't have any substantial savings. Many people aren't able to uproot themselves and move even if they wanted to without outside financial assistance, at which point I'm sure someone will be asking 'why should we pay to move people when they made a bad choice of where to live?', forgetting that these people may have lived there for generations.
      - stickfigure 8y ago
        You can be poor anywhere in the US, it doesn't have to be in a flood zone. The main argument for rebuilding these areas seems to be "these people have lived there for generations". People move, and catastrophic flooding seems like a better reason than most.
    - avar 8y ago
      > People that need healthcare don't have a choice, people _do_ have a choice to relocate to a more sustainable city though[...] People have a choice in relocating from New Orleans for less flood risk, but they don't have a choice to relocate from the US if their main problem with living there is is with the US's health care system? I'm not going to argue that they should, but this example isn't exactly doing the work for you that you seem to think it's doing. If you're going to say "just move from New Orleans" someone else can say "just move to Canada". You can argue about the relative difficulty of those things, but they're not inherently different, and there's certainly people for whom it's a lot easier to move countries than say people in abject poverty in New Orleans who can't imagine pulling off a move to another city in the US.
  - shstalwart 8y ago
    Yes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dpc59 8y ago
  I live in revelstoke, if we do that Canada cant ship goods from coast to coast from december to april (the subsidy I have in mind is the Rogers pass avalanche control program) Those subsidies exist because they benefit people.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    The usual counterargument to this is that the people who benefit should pay for it themselves. Only if the true price is available to consumers can they make informed choices. I don't fully subscribe to it myself, since I support some subsidies, but for many things it applies.
    - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
      You're assuming they're shipping luxury, optional goods, but what if they're essentials like food and medicine? I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works (case in point: SF, where people rather live in substandard housing or the street and have a shot at a big tech or startup company than move somewhere affordable).
      - weberc2 8y ago
        > I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works It sounds like you're saying "we oughtn't change the status quo because it wouldn't be the status quo". What am I misunderstanding? (Apologies if this is obvious; still waking up)
    - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
      This seems like a good idea, until you get to interconnected systems that everyone depends on (like eg. the levees around an island, or a large harbor). Then it's STILL a good idea; in those cases everyone should pay!
  - selimthegrim 8y ago
    You might not want to give the new Alberta government any ideas.
TallGuyShort 8y ago
Where do I sign up? If ever there's been a holier than thou route it's thinking your ideas are so good that buying them should be mandatory.
aristophenes 8y ago
I'd suggest a more rational subsidy. Tornadoes, earthquakes, lightning, fire, those can be managed for but are largely unpredictable. Water is predictable, it follows gravity. We have maps already that tell us where it will go in a flood. I'd like the program to be, the government will pay you the value of the property before the flood. Then it becomes government property, basically parkland, and no one can build on it ever again. You are going to have to rebuild somewhere else. Eventually all the places that can flood will flood and then there will be no more subsidy necessary.

vpribish 8y ago

Tu quoque much?

stickfigure 8y ago

Maybe the whole country would be better if everyone was willing to give up these sorts of unsustainable subsidies? We (society as a whole) have an economic mechanism for protecting against risk - insurance. In places where insurance is too expensive or not available at all, perhaps we should consider letting nature take over.

smallnamespace 8y ago
One persons's 'unsustainable subsidy' is another person's 'showing compassion for those who are less fortunate'. It's not like New Orleans is a particularly affluent area either, and people have lived there for a very long time. Take health insurance—one view could be that it forces people who are healthier to subsidize those who are less healthy. While some people are unhealthy due to factors outside of control, others are unhealthy because they do unhealthy things. Would you consider the latter an 'unsustainable subsidy'?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pm90 8y ago
  Wait what? You're comparing healthcare, which is a necessity, to choosing to live in a particular city. People that need healthcare don't have a choice, people _do_ have a choice to relocate to a more sustainable city though. I agree with you that NOLA isn't just the wealthy. But, that doesn't change the fact that its not a sustainable city to live in.
  - xapata 8y ago
    Don't a large number of people have health problems as a result of poor diet and lack of exercise? I think that would qualify as a choice. I know I could probably lower my cholesterol with more discipline. If I choose not to, it's reasonable for me to pay higher insurance premiums.
  - smallnamespace 8y ago
    I'm reacting to the harsh, judgmental attitude towards people in NOLA and using health care insurance to point out that the world is complicated. Some people are certainly unhealthy because of choices they made (yet there's still broad support for universal risk sharing), while some people in NOLA certainly aren't there by choice. The poverty rate there is about twice the US average, and something like 40% of Americans don't have any substantial savings. Many people aren't able to uproot themselves and move even if they wanted to without outside financial assistance, at which point I'm sure someone will be asking 'why should we pay to move people when they made a bad choice of where to live?', forgetting that these people may have lived there for generations.
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      You can be poor anywhere in the US, it doesn't have to be in a flood zone. The main argument for rebuilding these areas seems to be "these people have lived there for generations". People move, and catastrophic flooding seems like a better reason than most.
  - avar 8y ago
    > People that need healthcare don't have a choice, people _do_ have a choice to relocate to a more sustainable city though[...] People have a choice in relocating from New Orleans for less flood risk, but they don't have a choice to relocate from the US if their main problem with living there is is with the US's health care system? I'm not going to argue that they should, but this example isn't exactly doing the work for you that you seem to think it's doing. If you're going to say "just move from New Orleans" someone else can say "just move to Canada". You can argue about the relative difficulty of those things, but they're not inherently different, and there's certainly people for whom it's a lot easier to move countries than say people in abject poverty in New Orleans who can't imagine pulling off a move to another city in the US.
- shstalwart 8y ago
  Yes.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dpc59 8y ago
I live in revelstoke, if we do that Canada cant ship goods from coast to coast from december to april (the subsidy I have in mind is the Rogers pass avalanche control program) Those subsidies exist because they benefit people.
- adrianN 8y ago
  The usual counterargument to this is that the people who benefit should pay for it themselves. Only if the true price is available to consumers can they make informed choices. I don't fully subscribe to it myself, since I support some subsidies, but for many things it applies.
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    You're assuming they're shipping luxury, optional goods, but what if they're essentials like food and medicine? I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works (case in point: SF, where people rather live in substandard housing or the street and have a shot at a big tech or startup company than move somewhere affordable).
    - weberc2 8y ago
      > I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works It sounds like you're saying "we oughtn't change the status quo because it wouldn't be the status quo". What am I misunderstanding? (Apologies if this is obvious; still waking up)
  - Kim_Bruning 8y ago
    This seems like a good idea, until you get to interconnected systems that everyone depends on (like eg. the levees around an island, or a large harbor). Then it's STILL a good idea; in those cases everyone should pay!
- selimthegrim 8y ago
  You might not want to give the new Alberta government any ideas.

TallGuyShort 8y ago

Where do I sign up? If ever there's been a holier than thou route it's thinking your ideas are so good that buying them should be mandatory.

aristophenes 8y ago

I'd suggest a more rational subsidy. Tornadoes, earthquakes, lightning, fire, those can be managed for but are largely unpredictable. Water is predictable, it follows gravity. We have maps already that tell us where it will go in a flood. I'd like the program to be, the government will pay you the value of the property before the flood. Then it becomes government property, basically parkland, and no one can build on it ever again. You are going to have to rebuild somewhere else. Eventually all the places that can flood will flood and then there will be no more subsidy necessary.