Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
Good piece by Bret Stephens on the realities of evacuation and the real consequences of such an order. Mayor Mike, previously thought of as Lord Farquat, now also evoking images of Chicken Little, is sure to claim credit for the absence of cataclysm in NYC, as though Irene becoming a tropical storm was unforseen (not).
The challenge for bureaucrats is there is no required calculation of the costs of lost time, diverted energy, and foregone income to the broad public from their dictats -- the ledger is one sided, and they only see the costs and benefits, to the government, bureaucrats, and politicians. No wonder they also think that "reconstruction" is good for the economy, and that governments create jobs. Somehow, "opportunity cost" has become a lost concept.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
Instugator
If you want to complain about the media living out the lyrics to "Dirty Laundry", I am right there with you. Your 20/10 hindsight isn't impressing me. · Aug 30 at 4:22pm
Bingo.
Re: Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
Dittoheadadt, Instugator, and perhaps StickerShock seem to think those of us who are critical of the evacuation calls are:
--Oblivious to and callous about the hazards and harms of the storm (not so: I am on Long Island and was in the thick of it, complete with two days of reasonable preparations based on worst-case Category One expectations, without needing-- mirabile dictu -- government mandates compelling those adjustments, and have been housing and helping those without power ever since),
--Operating based on hindsight (no, those of us who have lived through many such storms thought, starting several days previous, as we watch people get panicked by media hype, that much of the media commentary was driven by desperation for drama, and misfocused on their own back yards, and that the political calls were largely driven by individual political calculation, rather than greater public good)
--And, (with sarcasm), believing ourselves to have infallible predictive ability about weather (which, if we believed that, would be worthy of sarcasm, but we don't.)
(continued...)
Edited on August 31, 2011 at 6:29amRe: Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
My thanks to Mollie and Kennedy, who I think may share my sense that there is risk in all events in life, and cost calculations made for each, as well as consequences to decisions that may not be obvious, and that by and large we are better off if we assume that a people who are capable of self governance are also capable of making their own best decisions about their unique circumstances.
The hubris refered to was the assumption that Bloomberg's evacuation decision had benefits which outweighed consequences and costs; the "seen and unseen" is a reference to the work of the economist Lord Bastiat, who like Molly would have noted the real, vast but yet uncalculated cost of all the people who couldn't get to work, who couldn't sell anything for days, who had to spend time and money traveling out of the city and staying perhaps someplace likely more dangerous.
(continued...)
Edited on August 31, 2011 at 6:31amRe: Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
As best I can tell, for the defenders of the evacuation order, all storms are unpredictable and have a slight probability of becoming extreme disasters, and there are therefore no measures, or attendant costs, that aren't justified, however expensive, and however ineffectual, because the intentions were good. As it stands, can we agree that in result we seem to have evacuated, and largely shut down commerce, in one area that didn't need it, and largely left people in the areas that did get severely affected?
Some people will be stupid - I believe at least one of the deaths was a surfer -- but my recommendation is to let people make their own best decisions about whether to stay or go, and to have government do its best to continue to provide necessary services on which people depend.
But if our friends, given the unpredictability and risks of severe weather, want to counsel evacuating the whole of the east cost next time, (the logical conclusion of asserting that no cost is too great, and no probability sufficiently remote), then that is their prerogative.
Oct '10
Re: Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
Heather Higgins: As best I can tell, for the defenders of the evacuation order, all storms are unpredictable and have a slight probability of becoming extreme disasters, and there are therefore no measures, or attendant costs, that aren't justified, however expensive, and however ineffectual, because the intentions were good.
But if our friends, given the unpredictability and risks of severe weather, want to counsel evacuating the whole of the east coast next time, (the logical conclusion of asserting that no cost is too great, and no probability sufficiently remote)...
This is a caricature of the points we've made ("all storms", "no measures", "whole of the east coast", "no cost is too great", "no probability sufficiently remote",etc.).
If you had posted your thoughts before Irene made landfall, then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. But you didn't. You waited until Irene was over to cluck cluck about the Chicken Littles.
This side's point is that it was appropriate on Friday, given the expected potential for disaster, to evac and shutdown NYC on Saturday. Your point is that it was appropriate on Sunday to decide whether to evac and shutdown NYC...on Saturday.
Re: Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
dittoheadad
This side's point is that it was appropriate on Friday, given the expected potential for disaster, to evac and shutdown NYC on Saturday. Your point is that it was appropriate on Sunday to decide whether to evac and shutdown NYC...on Saturday. · Aug 30 at 11:53pm
That's not quite accurate. By Thursday they knew it was not going to be a direct hit of a Category 3, which is what had been worried about in days earlier.
Government officials are understandably concerned that they'll be saddled with a GWB-in-Katrina type situation. But that doesn't justify over-reaction. I think the argument can be made here that costs were not balanced with benefits here. Even from a hurricane prep standpoint, people couldn't use public transportation to go get the goods they needed. Thank God that worked out all right, but it could have been a problem.
Re: Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
Caricature would be a good description of post #5. I fully realize that despite the position taken in Dittoheadadt's posts that there is likely some level of measures that even dittoheadadt would consider excessive, as genuinely unpleasant as it is to consider that tradeoffs exist even in humanitarian efforts. But having been caricatured myself, taking the defenders' positions to their logical conclusion seemed illustrative.
I apologize for not posting sooner, and didn't realize that actually being busy dealing with the pending hurricane invalidated sharing a widely felt sentiment that pre-existed it by days as we all watched all the forecasts.
The damage incurred, through wind and flooding, would have been incurred regardless of evacuation order and transit shutdown; but the costs of those orders were real and additive. I'm all for reasonable government measures taken for public safety, but I think we have great differences both over what constitutes "reasonable", and in seeing that each of these measures have broadly dispersed but in aggregate huge costs borne, but never accounted for, by the public.
Oct '10
Re: Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
dittoheadad
This side's point is that it was appropriate on Friday, given the expected potential for disaster, to evac and shutdown NYC on Saturday. Your point is that it was appropriate on Sunday to decide whether to evac and shutdown NYC...on Saturday. · Aug 30 at 11:53pm
That's not quite accurate. By Thursday they knew it was not going to be a direct hit of a Category 3, which is what had been worried about in days earlier.
Focusing on Cat 3 or Cat 1 or TS misses the forest for the trees. As Squishy wrote earlier,
"Silver's bottom line. Irene was 10th in media coverage and fatalities and 8th in economic damage at a projected $14B (Katrina was 1st at 93.7B).
Essentially Irene did Cat-3 level damage as a Cat-1 level hurricane.
Forty dead and fourteen billion in losses, by any measure, is simply devastating."
The resulting devastation justified much of the preparations. That the devastation didn't happen to hit NYC (for no reason other than 'canes aren't cooperative) is due solely to luck. I guess it was bad luck, huh?
Oct '10
Re: Hubris, Bloomberg, and Seeing the Unseen
"Irene has led to the deaths of at least 45 people in 13 states. If that death toll stands, it would be comparable to 1999's Hurricane Floyd, which also struck North Carolina and charged up the East Coast into New England, causing most of its 57 deaths by inland drowning. At the time, it was the deadliest U.S. hurricane in nearly 40 years.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo estimated the damage to his state alone at $1 billion during a visit to Prattsville, a Catskills community where 600 homes were damaged by heavy rains and floods that also shredded roads and washed out bridges.
"Upstate New York paid a terrible, terrible price for this storm," Cuomo said.
In North Carolina, where Irene blew ashore along the Outer Banks on Saturday before heading for New York and New England, Gov. Beverly Perdue said the hurricane destroyed more than 1,100 homes."
And yet taking the prudent measure of shutting down NYC in advance (e.g. while the outcome was unknown and unknowable) of this storm is worthy of scorn and ridicule and Monday morning quarterbacking? Seriously, folks...