4 ms·

Serious question. I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't know the specifics of the Australian system, but: "These people know they live in a flood zone

by jarek 16y ago

Serious question. I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't know the specifics of the Australian system, but: "These people know they live in a flood zone. [...] People choose to live in these place of their own free will in the full knowledge the river might one day come and flood them." Doesn't this end up being the usual privatize the profit, socialize the risk scheme? People enjoy their property on flood-free years (which I understand to be most of them). In a flood, the society sticks together, volunteers, the government steps in and helps out the flooded areas. People who live above the flood level, who might have chosen to do so consciously because of the flood level, get little reward for their risk avoidance. I don't mean to sound heartless and I am sure it is horrible to have your house under water -- but isn't this an issue at the end of the day? Is there a factor I am not aware of? Is there an overall shortage of suitable, natural-disaster-proof land? Do you get flood insurance and pay back for the help received?

brc 16y ago
I did answer this before but the internet appears to eaten the comment. I'll be more brief this time. >Doesn't this end up being the usual privatize the profit, socialize the risk scheme? In short, there's very few locations which don't have advantages of a greater public pool of funds to assist in disaster. You might say this but I'll counter by saying that all residents of San Francisco are privatising the benefits of living in such a nice city, while greater California and the USA are socialising their risk of living in an earthquake prone area. The same goes for tornado country, or most of florida with Hurricanes, or wherever, really. So while you can probably argue the technical merits of such a statement it quickly can be applied to just about anyone, anywhere, and starts to look absurd. I would object if people living in flood zones were automatically provided with government funds to rebuild. While the government might donate money to the general cause of rebuilding (much of which goes to hardship funding) they don't directly underwrite private property. So the person with the most risk is the one living next to the river. As long as they don't expect or are promised help, then you're not socialising the risk. If people volunteer help after the fact, that's a different thing.

by jarek 16y ago

brc 16y ago

I did answer this before but the internet appears to eaten the comment. I'll be more brief this time. >Doesn't this end up being the usual privatize the profit, socialize the risk scheme? In short, there's very few locations which don't have advantages of a greater public pool of funds to assist in disaster. You might say this but I'll counter by saying that all residents of San Francisco are privatising the benefits of living in such a nice city, while greater California and the USA are socialising their risk of living in an earthquake prone area. The same goes for tornado country, or most of florida with Hurricanes, or wherever, really. So while you can probably argue the technical merits of such a statement it quickly can be applied to just about anyone, anywhere, and starts to look absurd. I would object if people living in flood zones were automatically provided with government funds to rebuild. While the government might donate money to the general cause of rebuilding (much of which goes to hardship funding) they don't directly underwrite private property. So the person with the most risk is the one living next to the river. As long as they don't expect or are promised help, then you're not socialising the risk. If people volunteer help after the fact, that's a different thing.