that was the general synopsis in my brain yet Im not educated enough to back it up with facts. economically i think long term it is justified just like any other place which is in a disaster area and is continually rebuilt (relatively speaking) just on a much higher scale. its all relative ya know.
right but i think this dude's point is that private interests should pay for this stuff. if it makes economic sense, then the people who profit from the industries in the area should also bear the risks.
this is a different situation since these customers/business owners have been left homeless as well. there is no defining line in this instance.
That's an incredibly ambiguous group, though. You can't narrow it down to a few companies. The trickle-down nature of our economy ensures that the number benefeciaries are practically immeasurable.
i still don't understand. i dont see why it matters if new orleans is rebuilt or repopulated or not. why not move somewhere easier?
