I'll grant I could have said 'In the long run requiring better infrastructure probably won't hurt the economy and likely will actually help it.' instead of givi

I'll grant I could have said 'In the long run requiring better infrastructure probably won't hurt the economy and likely will actually help it.' instead of giving the focus word 'buildings'. Past that, I think my arguments stand. The fact that the economy isn't a zero sum game means that often just building something, anything, can make the economy better for everyone. Trying it to something useful greatly magnifies this. The New Madrid zone is much bigger than the town. It crosses into three states and likely encompasses regional infrastructure. Being prepared often focuses on critical infrastructure like bridges, first responder buildings, schools, etc since ensuring core services in a large emergency is key. Simple programs that focus on those areas would probably also lead to better services in these places today as well as ensuring they were available in an emergency and that would lead to real economic value outside of just being prepared or churning the economy to build it. > The economy isn't a zero sum game, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to simply destroy resources. And money we have on hand now is literally a zero game. This gets to the core of the 'not a zero sum game' and 'how do we get people to take it seriously' argument. As I have argued, twice now, it likely isn't throwing money away and could create real economic value, especially if the focus is on critical infrastructure, infrastructure that gets heavy daily use anyway. The fact that it isn't a zero sum game means you can do this and still fill potholes. In fact, it means you likely could do this and slip in filling potholes under the guise of 'ensuring access to critical infrastructure'. In the end this is only a zero sum game when we make it one artificially by finding reasons to avoid doing things that give us value like improving infrastructure and disaster preparedness.