Government-Enhanced Disaster
The correlation between poverty and destruction resulting from natural disaster seems to hold up not only with a cross-section of nations, but also over time. As nations become wealthier, their losses of human life from natural calamities tend to fall. Countries that experience economic growth are putting themselves in a better position to reduce the number of deaths that result from natural cataclysms, and the clearest way to produce that economic growth is to allow people to interact in the marketplace without government intrusion. [Full Article]
Comments (14)
Are you sure the index of the graph is correct? In contradiction to the message of the text and in accordance with uneducated expectations, the least developed countries (LDC) seem to experience far less victims than the less developed regions (LDR), in fact they rank closer to the winners than to the losers, if I believe the diagram.
Published: December 31, 2004 8:43 AM
The fallicy of most "Mises" and "this terrible stuff costs . . ." analysis is that there are two sies to a balance sheet. One person's liability is another's asset.
For example, "Drunk drivers cost . . . ." If every person magically went on the wagon this country would go into a depression in two months.
Published: December 31, 2004 11:50 AM
Dr. Preusse, look more carefully at the graph. The LDC's (blue circles) have far more victims than the more developed regions (blue triangles).
Published: December 31, 2004 2:31 PM
Mr. Terrell:
There is a minor mistake in your article. The last big San Francisco earthquake was in 1989, not 1994.
Published: December 31, 2004 3:34 PM
Reminds me of the government-built levies around the Mississippi River in the United States. Many millions of people building dense housing where the river used to flood on a semi-regular basis.
So yeah, the levies prevent the "usual" low-level floods, but when a real rainstorm comes through the levies pinch the river so that when it does break it ends up with vastly greater damage than would have occurred naturally.
I would argue, in fact, that little damage would occur at all if government would stop subsidizing people building on flood plains. But that's just me.
"You built your house WHERE? Sorry, no insurance for you." That is the free-market answer to the problem.
Published: December 31, 2004 9:51 PM
Indeed, and then the media (and the Army Corps of Engineers) reports the flood was a 100yr flood based on that water level when it was none of the sort.
Published: January 1, 2005 3:24 AM
Mr. Terrell,
If it is true that the LESS developed have about the triple figures of victims compared to the LEAST developed, the fact that they have (how much?) more than the MORE developed seems to be not significant. At least one would expect an explanation for this irregularity.
Published: January 1, 2005 5:50 AM
The article correctly points out that protection against natural disasters is primarily a consequence of wealth. However, it should also be mentioned that part of the issue are early warning systems. For example, had people known of the coming tsunami, many could have been saved by going inland.
Published: January 1, 2005 8:40 AM
Advanced countries are safer in natural disasters because they have govt imposed building standards. Has nothing to do with rich people building safe houses for themselves but rich people building shoddy high rises so they can rip off the poor who have no way to know if the building is safe.
Published: January 1, 2005 11:33 AM
"Advanced countries are safer in natural disasters because they have govt imposed building standards. Has nothing to do with rich people building safe houses for themselves but rich people building shoddy high rises so they can rip off the poor who have no way to know if the building is safe."
Yeah, I guess building owners have absolutely no incentive to protect their own property and paying customers from harm. It is really the altruistic politicians (which have absolutely no real vested interest in such properties) who want the buildings to be safe.
Published: January 1, 2005 5:02 PM
Please elaborate just a bit more on this:
"What southern Asia needs now, in the aftermath of this tragedy, is for the government to get out of the way of economic growth."
Thanks.
Published: January 2, 2005 10:04 AM
"Yeah, I guess building owners have absolutely no incentive to protect their own property and paying customers from harm."
Big money is being made in "slumlording" here and around the world. If one can make a big profit for 20 years doesn't matter if an earthquake takes out the building in the 21st year. It saves one the cost of tearing down the trashed (by renters and lack of maintainance) building.
Published: January 3, 2005 11:33 AM
Subject: Building codes
In 1997 I endured the worst winter in north Idaho since 1948, according to old
time residents.
Some years ago the county introduced building codes. The roof loading code was set at 40 pounds per square foot. So, guess what, builders began building to 40#. Formerly area builders built to what they knew would withstand the heaviest
snows known, so guess what, the pre-code buildings did not suffer a single failure. Code buildings that did not have the snow removed collapsed all over the area.
It was an unusually heavy snow pack, made worse by snowing a foot or two, then raining on it, freezing the soaked snow, snowing more, raining again and freezing the new layer of water soaked snow.
The 2 new commissioners abolished, as they had promised, the county building code department. The one holdover commissioner voted against abolition.
Now the lenders and insurers enforce their own standards and hire their own inspectors.
Due to the state of man competition is desirable in every area of endeavor possible. The efficiency theoretically possible from monopoly does not happen.
The only things government is really good at are: killing people, destroying property and taking people's liberties away. If you think about it, that is how government carries out its function of protecting the people. It kills, or takes
away the liberties of, those who threaten civil order, and kills, or destroys the property of, those who would invade and try to establish a different, perhaps worse, government.
Notice I said "government is GOOD at," not "government is EFFICIENT at." The more wasteful that government is even when doing that at which it is good, the more it destroys, which is one of the things it is good at doing.
Al Grayson
Published: January 5, 2005 7:57 AM
Subject: Building codes
In 1997 I endured the worst winter in north Idaho since 1948, according to old
time residents.
Some years ago the county introduced building codes. The roof loading code was set at 40 pounds per square foot. So, guess what, builders began building to 40#. Formerly area builders built to what they knew would withstand the heaviest
snows known, so guess what, the pre-code buildings did not suffer a single failure. Code buildings that did not have the snow removed collapsed all over the area.
It was an unusually heavy snow pack, made worse by snowing a foot or two, then raining on it, freezing the soaked snow, snowing more, raining again and freezing the new layer of water soaked snow.
The 2 new commissioners abolished, as they had promised, the county building code department. The one holdover commissioner voted against abolition.
Now the lenders and insurers enforce their own standards and hire their own inspectors.
Due to the state of man competition is desirable in every area of endeavor possible. The efficiency theoretically possible from monopoly does not happen.
The only things government is really good at are: killing people, destroying property and taking people's liberties away. If you think about it, that is how government carries out its function of protecting the people. It kills, or takes
away the liberties of, those who threaten civil order, and kills, or destroys the property of, those who would invade and try to establish a different, perhaps worse, government.
Notice I said "government is GOOD at," not "government is EFFICIENT at." The more wasteful that government is even when doing that at which it is good, the more it destroys, which is one of the things it is good at doing.
Al Grayson
Published: January 5, 2005 7:58 AM