An equivalent disaster in, say, Lincoln Nebraska, looks different in it's aftermath than New Orleans. You know it. I know it.
We will see further volatility in the market as the waters come down and the true extent of damage becomes more obvious. This will be reflected in energy and other prices, although the energy sector is quickly getting back on its feet in the area. As the price tag mounts and the trading opportunities become more obvious, the only question that won't be asked is :"why rebuild at all?" There is something intrinsically and characteristically arrogant in the Administration's current position. New Orleans should never have been built where it is, and should never have lasted as long as it did. The environmental buffer preventing future storm damage is, by most accounts, damaged beyond effectiveness. The Administration now has an opportunity to build a completely new city somewhere safer - a completely wired city, with modern technological advances built from the get-go. China is doing it on a scale much more grand. Sure the US can pull off something similar, if on a smaller scale? Unfortunately, companies and governments are built from the top down, and Bush has had enough time in office now to ensure that all the power positions are occupied with people who exhibit incompetence equal only to his own. They have dropped the ball numerous times in the past week, and now have the ability to create a huge economic boost for the region, rehabilitating it to the point where it could become a Silicon Valley for the energy sector. You want to see the US have a lasting impact on the price of energy? Build a city that can lead the world in petroleum innovation. That would get the market's attention. But I think Bush lacks the vision, and his yes-men lack the ability. So he will arrogantly lead a rebuilding effort that will see the same sort of thing happen over again. -Matt
Most of you clowns are simply delusional. What would you rebuild in New Orleans? The slums? The projects? The "shotgun" houses of the 20's? That would be a colossal waste of money. The people can't afford it. New Orleans is a dying city. It is very old, very poor and almost uninhabitable now. The Mayor and City Government did not have any plan to evacuate anybody anyway to anywhere. A total braid dead incompetent "big easy" politician. The City Government should have had a plan to bring the poor, disabled etc to collecting points such as schools or other public facilities that were safe, high and dry. These buildings should be equipped with the necessary supplies to house the people temporarily till help gets there. It seems none of the hospitals had a generator or were prepared in any way. But, of course, they were waiting on George Bush to come out and install an emergency generator for them. Only the local "first responders" like fire dept/police dept know who and where everyone is that needs help getting out. Civil defense block captains were needed. The Race Problem in this country: 67% of NO is black. One third of those are below poverty. Did you see how many babies there were!!!! When a uneducated poor young black woman has three kids under the age of 10 something is going wrong. The future of those kids is: a spiral into poverty themselves, dead before 21 or in jail before 25. The racist pigs like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson feed off of these people and use their misery to further their own agenda. Along with help with a despicable bozo like Geraldo. But, of course, it is George Bush's fault she dropped out of school in the 8th grade, weighs 300 lbs, has no job, three kids and now no future. Now, I do not know what the answers are but we do have to begin to discuss what the real problem are and what some solutions might be. We do have a problem with the Black culture in America. Just in case you have been in a coma for the last 35 years, Houston is the center of the energy business in the world. Just my two cents worth SteveD
I agree that it's not healthy to just "assume" that NO should be rebuilt at all. Since the ppl are already in other centres, perhaps the best course of action is to simply spend that money on upgrading the infrastructure in the different locations. If a decision like that was made, there would a be a whole host of different companies that would stand to benefit, and some of the same, and our investing and trading opportuities would be different. But I do have to disagree that Houston is the center of anything, at least from a world perspective. From the Ameri-centric view of the world, perhaps Houston is important, but there are far more important energy centers in other parts of the world. -Matt
Well, what's really despicable, is they did in fact have a plan, and it called for using public transportation to evacuate those who could not drive themselves. The question is, why wasn't the <a href="http://www.cityofno.com/SystemModules/PrintPage.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26">plan </a>followed? It was well known in advance -- years in advance -- what a Cat 4 or above storm would do to New Orleans, and the predictions are being born out with uncanny accuracy. [edit] here's the link I was looking for: most recently revised in 2000. Go to page 13, read paragraph 5. <center><img src="http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050901/capt.flpc21109012015.hurricane_katrina_flpc211.jpg?x=380&y=235&sig=NbUvEfVIaferkxoZTiys0Q--"></img></center>
For two, Saudi Arabia and Russia, both of which produce and export more than the US. In fact, if we're simply talking about reserves, there is more oil in northern Alberta than anywhere else in the world, other than Saudi Arabia. But that vast majority of that is not in the production and refining pools yet. The US doesn't even rank in the top 10 when measuring oil reserves. The US energy industry exists to produce for its own consumption, and to handle vast amounts of imported energy. It doesn't export, so the industry is designed and operates a particular way. That's not a "good" or "bad" statement, it's just a consideration of the facts. It doesn't mean that Houston *isn't* important, it just means that there are other places and facts that need to be considered before the American ego takes hold of the debate. (That's a general statement and wasn't meant as a personal attack or comment on your personality.) We're getting a bit off the thread topic, and I didn't intend to start an "us vs them" debate, but only to point out that the Americentric view of the world is likely to produce more of the same results. From a trading perspective, which is why we're all here, that means we can make certain assumptions and forecasts for our trading plans in the long term. -Matt