One could argue that FEMA and subsidized insurance create perverse incentives which reward people for choosing dangerous sites for homes and affect how they build them. It's easier to build or buy without thought of danger and evacuation. I remember in Minnesota there were stories every Spring of flooding along the Red River and the Mississippi, but those rivers have always had flood plains they fill with runoff. It's part of what makes the land fertile for agriculture. But people don't seem to plan for it, or have an exaggerated sense of control thanks to government attempts to manage waterways.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think that is a very fair argument to say that FEMA creates these situations. I trust almost zero government entities, even the ones that give away "free" stuff. The land off the coast of North Carolina is regularly destroyed and honestly isn't fit for building but why not if you are going to get bailed out anytime something goes wrong?
Management of waterways are necessary to some degree, but anytime the government is managing anything it is guaranteed that it will be managed in the most inefficient and incompetent way possible.
Government management of the Florida Everglades subsidized domestic sugar at the expense of taxpayers and a thriving ecosystem, too.