How many zeros in a billion?

[tom5796]

So what is your suggestion for Holland?

A whole country that has been quite literally re-claimed from the sea.
Global warming is a real threat to us all, that does not mean that we should all curl up and accept defeat without a fight.

Nelly

I think Eric's point is the question of why the American people are being burdened (forcefully charged) for rebuilding a city that doesn't make sense in the first place. If the locals want to rebuild, then they can choose to fund it themselves. I, for one, don't like the risk profile and if it were a stock I surely wouldn't buy it.

 

[FZ1inNH]

I think Eric's point is the question of why the American people are being burdened (forcefully charged) for rebuilding a city that doesn't make sense in the first place. If the locals want to rebuild, then they can choose to fund it themselves. I, for one, don't like the risk profile and if it were a stock I surely wouldn't buy it.

Nelly, Tom hit this nail precisely on the head. Good deduction Tom! :thumbup:

As for the rising waters, we cannot fight what has taken place over and over for billions of years on the planet. The waters will rise and at some point in the future, the polar caps will freeze and the waters will recede for "X" years. I personally feel we cannot stop it. Can you tell I don't buy the global warming theory in full? Sure, we contribute but we cannot control it, only slow (or hasten) the process, one that is inevitable regardless of what we as humans do. Again, my own opinion. I'm not out to change anyone's mind. Individuality rocks!

 

[mstewar1]

...you already flushed 2 Trillion down the toilet in Iraq.... Here's a though (not offense to you yanks, really)... Have your govenment keep your military on a leash until you actually need them. Having that 2 Trillion you spent in Iraq would surely come in handy now that your economy is not doing well...:thumbup:

I get pissed at the bald-faced war profiteering that's going on and no one seems to be talking about. Halliburton and the military-industrial complex have reaped huge windfalls from this "war". Let me be clear: I put that in quotes not to diminish in any way the terribly hard work that our troops have had to do, but instead to diminish the validity of the action in the first place. Bush, Cheney & co. lied to get their way and have seen to it that the pockets of their pals have been thoroughly padded as result of this "war". Money that should've gone to our infrastructure is now in the bank accounts of the fat cats who had more than enough to begin with. Roads, schools, power production and distribution grid, agriculture, energy and other scientific research... The basic systems that are the health and wealth of this (once great) country disregarded and short-changed.

I'm all for the libertarian notion of smaller government. But I think the current manifestation of "privatization" is really a bit of sham wherein the contractors get no-bid contracts and consistently get away with overcharging the government for their services. And who gets screwed in the end? The taxpayer. And don't get me started on the whole lobbyist question. To my little brain, this aspect of government is a tough nut, a difficult equation to work out. Perhaps it's actually quite simple. I'm sure someone will provide me with an answer -- and I'd love to hear it.

I can't diminish the very real security issue that terrorism can and does present. However, you put it very well, indeed, in so far as needing to keep the troops on a leash. Personally, I think that security begins at home. And security is more than just having a weapon -- basic systems, well-built and maintained are the core of the essential life support system of a nation. Just look at "developing" nations and what is it that they lack, what are the systems that they need to build and mature to reach a truly "developed" state? Infrastructure.

Hubris. Greed. Corruption = The new American way. I don't pretend to understand it all, I don't pretend to have answers. But from what little I do understand it just wrecks on my day...

/end rant

I feel a little better now. Go ahead and beat me up...

 

[Nelly]

I am not trying to flame your post nor your views, but if we had to guage every human act by its financial impact. What kind of society are we left with? What is the alternative?
If new Orleans were to become the next Venice the cost of underpinning and stilting the current populace would certainly match the requested 250 billion.

Which states will take the burden and cost of hosing and homing all the displaced citizens? The additional financial burden on existing health, social and education infrastructure for these states would be immense.
We are not talking about stock here we are talking about people, if it were stock then the decision not to invest or build would be an easier decision to make.
There are no simple answers to this problem but if it were yours or my town you Would pray that you would receive help.

Lets just forget about focusing this problem on New Orleans for a minute, lets ignore the bureaucratic assholes who could have and should have prepared the city better, lets forget for a minute that we are all being affected and burdened by world debt, lets forget for a minute how this financial impact will turn us into selfish un-caring people.
What kind of world do we want to live in, what kind of world do we want our children and grand children to live in?
If California or San Francisco are totally leveled by an earth quake next week should we just leave them? Its not my fault you built your house along a fault line.


Nelly

 

[Shafe716]

If California or San Francisco are totally leveled by an earth quake next week should we just leave them? Its not my fault you built your house along a fault line.


Nelly

No but we shouldn't spend billions and billions of dollars to rebuild in an area we know will have the same thing happen again. That money should be spent to encourage those folks to move to a more stable climate/land mass what have you. We have an incomprehensible amount of knowledge about the planet now than we did 100, 200, 1000, or 10,000 years ago when some of these places were settled (obviously referring to some European locations there). There are reasons the ancient cultures stayed in sustainable areas, not deserts and floodplains. And if they lived in an area that a great natural disaster took place, many times they would migrate from that area. It's common sense.

Now that we know the more stable places to live in the world shouldn't it make sense to encourage people to live there rather than where lives and property would be in danger?

Say Holland does get totally "reclaimed" if the waters recede does it make sense to build right back in the same place again, with no care or attention paid to the risks they're taking.

as the saying goes. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me.

 

[necrotimus]

Nine. There are nine zeros in the commonly excepted way of representing the number one billion.

I'm not sure why this thread is still alive but that should hopefully answer any questions..

 

[Jman]

I see your angle Nelly. It makes perfect sense. I think a lot of people believe in helping victims of tragedy no matter the cause. Maybe a relocation to a higher elevation would be a good solution to the different points of view presented here.

 

[Sawblade]

How about we pay to relocate New Orleans to Wyoming if we're going to blow all that money anyway? There's plenty of room and much less chance of natural disasters.

 

[Nelly]

No but we shouldn't spend billions and billions of dollars to rebuild in an area we know will have the same thing happen again. That money should be spent to encourage those folks to move to a more stable climate/land mass what have you. We have an incomprehensible amount of knowledge about the planet now than we did 100, 200, 1000, or 10,000 years ago when some of these places were settled (obviously referring to some European locations there). There are reasons the ancient cultures stayed in sustainable areas, not deserts and floodplains. And if they lived in an area that a great natural disaster took place, many times they would migrate from that area. It's common sense.

Now that we know the more stable places to live in the world shouldn't it make sense to encourage people to live there rather than where lives and property would be in danger?

Say Holland does get totally \"reclaimed\" if the waters recede does it make sense to build right back in the same place again, with no care or attention paid to the risks they're taking.

as the saying goes. Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me.

I don't disagree with your logic, after all it would be the sensible thing to do. However, It still leaves someone the financial burden of picking up the tab for a mass migration.
There is no cheap solution to this answer.

Nelly

 

[D-Mac]

As usual, you guys have no shortage of interesting ideas....

-We all hate taxes (I hate them as much as anyone) and we can all point to many, many needless wastes of our tax dollars. That said, we really do need to collect something to maintain our infrastructure (roads, schools), military, police, public libraries, municipal services, etc. Sure - we could just have a free-for-all and do whatever we want, but we'd all be riding dual-sports.....(the roads are so bad in Michigan it's hard to find decent pavement as it is!) We need major tax reform in a bad way......

-New Orleans is in a terrible spot geographically, but there IS something we can do about it. We can help restore the wetlands. It's a win ecologically and a win for the city. Cheaper than rebuilding everything every time a major hurricane hits.

-Prevention is also critical when it comes to big, tough to handle problems like climate change. Yes - it's too late to prevent much of the damage, but even a small change would save us BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars down the road. Every bit of sea level rise we don't have to content with is a major victory. Not to mention how a small difference in our behavior could influence a lot of what's left of the earth's plant/animal species 100 years from now. Development of the technologies to help could revitalize our economy and raise the standard of living for the middle class (or at least slow the erosion).

Let's look for 'win-win' initiatives first. There are plenty of them out there.

 

[FZ1inNH]

I see your angle Nelly. It makes perfect sense. I think a lot of people believe in helping victims of tragedy no matter the cause. Maybe a relocation to a higher elevation would be a good solution to the different points of view presented here.

Yes! Yes! Yes! THAT would be money better spent.

What my point is, is that I don't want to throw good money into a bad project. Do we abandon them? No! We help them thrive where they are assured more success at doing so. If the city wants to be rebuilt knowing disaster is immenent in the future, let them decide to spend their own money to do so.

I your Harley blew the engine after 1500 miles, and you went back and got another one, and THAT one blew at 1500 miles, are you going to go back for yet another Harley? I'd certainly hope not! You're going to make a change to better your investment because you just lost two shortly after warranty ran out and your account is drained!

I feel the same for anyone who decides to continuously build on a known natural disaster area. This is why I am NOT in one of those areas. I've insured my future by chosing a place that has no tornados, no hurricanes, out of harms way in a tsunami, no earth quakes... Our worst natural disaster is a 30" snow storm, but we don't ask the government for money to dig us out, we get out and do it ourselves.

The sad part is, I have no say in where my taxes are spent. My only option is to continue to pay the government to make bad decisions or lose my own home because I didn't.

 

[Jman]

I don't disagree with your logic, after all it would be the sensible thing to do. However, It still leaves someone the financial burden of picking up the tab for a mass migration.
There is no cheap solution to this answer.

Nelly

Nelly is right here....it is no cheap venture. I think a lot of people on this forum are big believers in quality. Do it once, do it right - so you can move on and forget about it. I think so much money would be saved in the long run by building away from natural disasters and building super strong houses. I have not done a lot of research on this, but I've heard that dome homes can easily withstand hurricane force winds. The point is, if you put the right money and resources up front correctly - you don't have to revisit the situation over and over again, throwing good money after bad down the tubes.