What Does a Billion Mean?

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Goddamnit. Thanks for ruining my wonderful theory

You can always say Americans are dumber than French because we built BELOW sea level when even the French knew not to do that.

[Tarek Morgen]

Originally Posted by gunnut

You can always say Americans are dumber than French because we built BELOW sea level when even the French knew not to do that.

at least you are better than the belgiums..I mean they built their whole country right between Germany and France!!

[Julie]

Originally Posted by gunnut

Who are you and what have you done with Julie?

LOL...when the economy is good, I liberally spend. When the economy is bad, I conserve.

[tankie]

Originally Posted by dalem

A billion days ago was about what, 10 million years ago? Plenty of things have walked on 2 feet before and since then. Just to be a stickler.

-dale

Isnt a billion , 1000 million ? and the likes of LORD BLACK and ARCHER have stolen billions have they not , but did not receive anything like the sentence they should have got , a billion years ? give or take some time off for good behaviour

[Shek]

Why we shouldn't aid Katrina's victims too much. - By Steven E. Landsburg - Slate Magazine

No Relief

Why we shouldn't aid Katrina's victims too much.

By Steven E. Landsburg

Posted Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2005, at 2:52 PM ET

Does federal assistance help or hurt in the long run?
First came the hurricane, then came the torrent. We're awash in accusations that the government has done too little to help Katrina's victims. Is it impertinent to ask how much would be enough? What's the right amount of federal assistance for disaster victims?

The suffering that we see on our screens crowds out our instincts for coldblooded policy analysis. But coldblooded policy analysis is our best hope to relieve heartbreak and suffering in the future, so let's steel ourselves for the task. Let's also divorce the discussion from the particulars of Katrina. We're looking for general principles that will apply to a wide range of future disasters.

So, I'll use what economists call a model and humanists call a fable: a simple fiction that has enough in common with reality to focus our attention on some (but not all) of the key issues.

Here's my model: There are two cities; call them Gog and Magog. Gog is subject to violent earthquakes; Magog isn't. Otherwise, they're identical. Except, of course, that housing must be cheaper in Gog; otherwise, nobody would live there.

The people in this model have a choice: They can live cheaply in Gog, where they risk intermittent devastation, or they can pay higher rents in Magog, where they're relatively safe. Because different people have different risk tolerances, some prefer Gog and some prefer Magog.

Now, suppose the government adopts a policy of taxing Magogians to restore the losses of Gogians after any earthquake. The result? All disaster losses are shared equally. There's no longer any financial risk for living in Gog, and Magog absorbs the extra costs for Gog's safety. Gogian housing prices rise because of the government's promise to replace houses damaged by earthquake. Magogian prices drop, because a Magog address no longer insulates you from the financial consequences of future earthquakes. As housing price equalize, there's no longer any reason to prefer one city to the other. Instead of two cities appealing to different kinds of people, we have two cities that are interchangeable.

This is no clear improvement for anyone. Those who preferred to live cheaply and accept some risk are now forced to live more expensively; those who chose to live safely and pay for it are now forced to subsidize the risk-taking of others. That kind of homogenization is exactly what New Orleans has always stood against. It's good to have cities with different cultures, it's good to have cities with different musical heritages, and it's good to have cities with different risk characteristics. Without differences, how can we celebrate diversity?

There is no need to e-mail me with the observation that New Orleans and, say, St. Louis, differ in important ways from Gog and Magog. For one thing, the burden of the Gulf Coast tragedy is hardly being shared equally by the people of New Orleans and St. Louis. But the rest of us are taking on at least a part of the Gulf Coast's pain, and, in the process, making the country a little more homogeneous. For another thing, St. Louis and New Orleans are not identical like Magog and Gog. They differ in important ways that go beyond housing prices and the probability of floods. That's why New Orleans housing doesn't have to be cheaper than St. Louis housing, though it still has to be cheaper than it would be in a world without floods. The model is not 100 percent realistic; that's why it's a model. Models abstract from reality. Their offsetting advantage is that they clearly highlight important policy considerations that might otherwise be overlooked.

One important way this particular model fails to reflect reality is that it takes the locations of Gog and Magog as given. A better model would highlight the fact that a policy of federal disaster relief encourages cities—and the individuals who populate those cities—to locate in potentially disastrous regions.

Let me offer myself as a case in point. I travel to San Francisco once or twice a year, and every single time I visit, I resolve someday to move there. I think my resolve has been substantially weakened in the past several days. Having seen how ineffective disaster relief can be, I am suddenly disinclined to live someplace where I might need to rely on it. And that's a good thing. The horror being visited on New Orleans today has made it less likely that I (and others like me) will be victims of an equivalent horror in the future. Had the relief efforts been more comprehensive, I might still be a future earthquake victim.

So those are two reasons we might want to rethink the policy of giving federal assistance to disaster victims. It encourages people to live in dangerous places, and it denies people the opportunity to accept higher risks in exchange for lower housing costs. Those abstract principles might be partly offset by any number of real world considerations. But if we want to build a better world, no truth should be ignored.

[JAD_333]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Look, everyone comes to America to build a city ON a hill. Only the French come and build a city UNDER a hill. So that every time it rains they get flooded. Well whatever they're French..... then the U.S. goes and buys it (buyer beware I guess, but if you're going to buy something French you should have the brains to check it out ahead of time) and now you guys are footing the bill for the Frenchness of la France. Any surprises? Come on who didn't see it coming?

I grew up in Washington, DC, a city designed by a Frenchman; he filled the city with circles, great for defense but a chore to negotiate in rush hour. But a city without an eccentricities is boring; better French ones than none at all.

[JAD_333]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Jad

Saw the Building Permit and just thought about this. Before I can even pay for the building permit (which is based on some super secret formula that I've not been able to figure out) I have to pay over $6,000.00 in various "Impact fees".

Everything from school, sewer, water,fire,sea turtle, road ect... Then as you know, after paying these fees I still have to pay Tap fees to use those utilities that I just paid an impact fee on.

But once again. Preaching to the choir

Do-re-me... Get this...we're building a mountain side house on a 4-acre lot with the low setback a good 800 ft away from the foundation area over a boulder and tree covered slope and the county won't issue the building permit until we INSTALL A SILT FENCE on the low side! Not in a 1000 years would shale from the excavation get washed that far down that hill, but goddangit, regulations shall be followed. $1,200 later we get our permit.

[glyn]

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Do-re-me... Get this...we're building a mountain side house on a 4-acre lot with the low setback a good 800 ft away from the foundation area over a boulder and tree covered slope and the county won't issue the building permit until we INSTALL A SILT FENCE on the low side! Not in a 1000 years would shale from the excavation get washed that far down that hill, but goddangit, regulations shall be followed. $1,200 later we get our permit.

Hang on just one minute, my friend. We are talking about official regulations here, and yet you try to use reason, logic and common sense It is all part of a big plot to extract monies from the populace to pay the bureaucracy that is (allegedly) serving you. The western world is increasingly surreal.

[Trooth]

Originally Posted by tankie

Isnt a billion , 1000 million ? and the likes of LORD BLACK and ARCHER have stolen billions have they not , but did not receive anything like the sentence they should have got , a billion years ? give or take some time off for good behaviour

Depending on your definition it is either 1,000 millions or 1,000,000 millions. Finance assumes 1,000.

The highest total Black was accused of was about £30m.

Archer was convicted of perjury. You could argue he stole the £500,000 damages award he got from the Daily Star (he has since repaid that plus £1.8m in costs) - not a penny more, not a penny less - sorry couldn't resist the pun. Archer was cleared of the mismanagement of £2.2m.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by gunnut

You can always say Americans are dumber than French because we built BELOW sea level when even the French knew not to do that.

You said it, not me

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I grew up in Washington, DC, a city designed by a Frenchman; he filled the city with circles, great for defense but a chore to negotiate in rush hour. But a city without an eccentricities is boring; better French ones than none at all.

I see. Read above.

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by glyn

Hang on just one minute, my friend. We are talking about official regulations here, and yet you try to use reason, logic and common sense It is all part of a big plot to extract monies from the populace to pay the bureaucracy that is (allegedly) serving you. The western world is increasingly surreal.

Unfortunately that is the case.

I do some computer repairs as a side business. I don't make a lot of money since it's more of a hobby than a real money making scheme. Well, my city found out that I profitted (less than $500 a year) on their turf by checking state and federal tax forms. Now they want me to buy a business license. That business license doesn't really do anything other than it says I have "permission" from the mighty bureaucracy to make some money. AND I have to pay a "fee" to get this license.

So this $500 a year was taxed by the federal government, state government, city government, and if I should spend what is left, state sales tax. How much did I really get out of my hours of work?

[Dwarven Pirate]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Look, everyone comes to America to build a city ON a hill. Only the French come and build a city UNDER a hill. So that every time it rains they get flooded. Well whatever they're French..... then the U.S. goes and buys it (buyer beware I guess, but if you're going to buy something French you should have the brains to check it out ahead of time) and now you guys are footing the bill for the Frenchness of la France. Any surprises? Come on who didn't see it coming?

Booooo

The French are pretty smart. They sell the stupid places to live like Louisiana. The smart places like Quebec have to be beat out of them.

I agree with not funding rebuilding. It isnt the govt job. The feds need to investigate the insurance complaints. The state needs to rebuild the levees and cetera. The populace needs to clean up and rebuild their homes.

It is like throwing money at the families of 9/11 victims or those who lost mansions in California, or bailing out the Savings and Loans. Damn, I need to stop being so sensible and get on board the gravy train! Somebody sell me a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge!

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

The state needs to rebuild the levees and cetera.

That's absolutely the truth!

Larry Elder had a show talking about the totally corrupt local government that was to blame for Katrina disaster.

New Orleans has a special committee that deals with how best to maintain the levee. It's a government entity and has the ears of the legislators. Supposedly out of the 11 proposals recommended by this committee just prior to Katrina, 9 had to do with building casinos and such. Only 2 had anything to do with fixing/maintaining the levees. The people on the committee draws a government salary and supposedly work for the people.

Just last night on cartoon network, a cartoon named Boondocks (a very racist show with black main characters) focused on the Katrina event in a very documentary manner. It also said that residents heard explosions just before the levees broke. What is the show trying to say here?

[JAD_333]

Originally Posted by glyn

Hang on just one minute, my friend. We are talking about official regulations here, and yet you try to use reason, logic and common sense It is all part of a big plot to extract monies from the populace to pay the bureaucracy that is (allegedly) serving you. The western world is increasingly surreal.

Aye, sir. I am official all the way. Pay all required fees; workmans compensation; federal, state and local taxes; surtaxes; sur-surtaxes and more, while just across the state line there are uninsured, tax-dodging jacklegs (under-the-table contractors) bidding against me for jobs in my territory. Fortunately, some would-be customers know of the liability risk and fines for hiring under-the-table. Well, I make sure they know.

More gripes...

Here's a new wrinkle: pre-trial punishment by judicial harrassment. A local 18 yr old kid (an adult here) was stopped for a vehicle deficiency (cracked windshild; windscreen in your part of the word). He had along a 17 yr old friend (a minor here). The police decided to search them; the 18 yr older was clean, but his friend had a 1/2 ounce of pot in his shoe, whereupon the police charged the 18 yr older with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. They took the 18 yr older to the dentention center and gave him one phone call. He called his parents who went and bailed his out for $500 cash. The magistrate set the terms of release: cannot leave the state, must attend pre-trial meetings once a week, cannot associate with his friend, and must take a drug test (which he passed). All this despite the presumption of innocence under US law. His parents smelled something rotten and hired an attorney ($750). The attorney said there was no evidence to support the charge and would seek a dismissal. Dismissal was denied. The court then set a trial date and send a sheriff to serve the papers. No one was home, so he left them taped to the front door (illegal). The wind must have blown the supeona into the yard. The trial date came and went. The police followed the 18 yr older to work the next day and arrested him for failure to appear. Again, his parents had to get him out of jail. He then went before the judge who reset the trial date for 2 months later. Thus, the boy had to go to weekly pre-trial sessions 8 more times (missing 2 hours of work each time). Finally the trial was held. The police testified (bored), the district attorney offered no evidence (mumbled a few words). The 17 yr older testified that the pot was his. Whereupon, the boy's lawyer noted the absense of evidence and moved for dismissal. The judge immediately granted it. The whole neigborhood is taking about this case. If the boy wasn't guilty from the start, what's going on here. Turns out, this kind of judicial harassement has happened to other boys in our area. Families suspect the police are doing it to crack down on drugs. I am not so sure, but the lack of evidence should have led the county prosecutor to drop the charges.

Strange things are happening in the good ole US of A. I won't even go into--oh, why not--how public school principals force problem kids out of school to improve the overall student body test scores so they can get more federal funding. You guessed it. The amount of federal support is based on overall school performance. The drop-out-kick-out rate here is--no kidding--as high as 30% for boys and 10% for girls. A year later the kids march up to another public school that administers tests to get high school diploma called a GED (General Equivalency Diploma). It takes 8 weeks of remedial study. The kids love it...it's easy street for them. Many of them then march down to the state community college and get admitted with their GEDs. Right back on track. This is regulation gone completely amuck.

Just musing...sorry for deviating from the thread.