Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6
It's not necessarily that "dumb"...avoiding a flood isn't necessarily worth it at any price. How much would it have been worth for Winnipeg to have avoided the 1950 flood? What if it had cost billions, in today's dollars, and hundreds of other worthy public expenditures had had to be cancelled to pay for it, with taxes raised to damaging levels? Under these conditions, would the city have been better off five years after the non-flood of 1950 than it was after what in real life turned out to be the flood of 1950? It's not a simple question.
|
It's dumb when you know the figures. Billions of dollars in damages vs hundreds of millions in preparation. You talk like people didn't know the potential damage, nor how much mitigation would cost.
Of course it's not worth it at ANY price - but when the cost can be quantified (and it easily can), and the price to avoid it can also be calculated (it also easily can)... it doesn't take a genius to know that paying for insurance is a good idea.
Threaded Mode