5 ms·

Does Australia need that? I don't think they are a poor country? Sorry if that sounds petty, just wondering.

• batiudrami 16y ago
  No, not really. I'm a little embarrassed that we're calling out for donations when there are much more worthy causes.
• jacques_chester 16y ago
  It depends on what you define as 'need', which is going to be a bit subjective. I can't be your conscience for you. But every dollar will find a use now helping to evacuate, feed and protect people from the flood waters and in future it will help them to rebuild.
• thisrod 16y ago
  HN isn't just a Californian site. Many of us live in Australia, or have lived.
• kondro 16y ago
  Cleanup bill estimates I've heard so far are in excess of $15 billion. There is an estimated $2 billion in damages to roads alone. Expenditure like this would take anyone for surprise, including seemingly wealthy countries.
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  • Tichy 16y ago
    Sure, but for example I live in Europe and we have to bail out entire countries and industries, which also costs billions. I feel it would make more sense to donate in places where the government can't help, like 3rd world. Is anybody considering donating to the European Union? I have also heard it can be a problem to donate for specific causes, if the organizations then are not allowed to use the money for other things. Since apparently these australians live in flooding areas, how many of them have not been insured? Would i encourage them to skip insurance in the future, too, if i would donate now?
    • jacques_chester 16y ago
      Two things commonly arise in these cases. 1. Most insurers don't drive home the point that they're only insuring for storm and surge, not for flood ... until after the floods are done. 2. Flood insurance is usually set at very high prices. In some parts of the country it's consequently been made illegal to settle in flood zones. But these floods are so large that they're affecting areas that have never flooded before, where a rational person wouldn't have bought flood insurance anyway. I'm honestly not sure if you'd be encouraging them to skip insurance in future. I suspect not, because the government payouts in past natural disasters have only been a fraction of the damage caused, whereas a good insurance policy could pay 100% or more of the cost. It's still rational to take the insurance if you can afford it.
• liedra 16y ago
  A lot of this will go to help poorer people unable to insure their homes and/or contents, or to help relief efforts feed, clothe, and house evacuees. It may not be a poor country but there are still poor people. Just like Hurricane Katrina in the US -- though our government seems to do a better job than the US when it comes to disaster response.
  • jacques_chester 16y ago
    Our governments get a lot of practice. Fires, floods and cyclones are relatively common occurrences, though rarely on this scale. I imagine that at this point emergency services in the south of the US are pretty good at responding to tornadoes, for example.