Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 12, 2017

This is the first time in the history of record keeping that two Category 4 or higher hurricanes, Harvey and Irma, have struck the U.S. mainland in the same year. ... "We estimated that Hurricane Harvey is to be the costliest weather disaster in U.S. history at $190 billion or one full percentage point of the GDP. Together, AccuWeather predicts these two disasters amount to 1.5 of a percentage point of the GDP, which will about equal and therefore counter the natural growth of the economy for the period of mid-August through the end of the fourth quarter," [AccuWeather founder Joel] Myers added.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

But we just can't afford to move to green energy or stop using coal.

A few thousand coal miner jobs are totally worth hundreds of billions in climate change disasters.

#1 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-12 07:26 PM | Reply

IIRC, natural disasters benefit the national economy. Destruction isn't accounted for in GDP calculations.

#2 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-09-12 08:16 PM | Reply

IIRC, natural disasters benefit the national economy. Destruction isn't accounted for in GDP calculations.

#2 | Posted by GOnoles92

You think there's nothing better we could spend $290 billion on that would benefit the economy more than simply rebuilding what we already had?

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-12 09:16 PM | Reply

simply rebuilding what we already had? #3 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Rebuilding, first and foremost, seems like a good path to take :).

#4 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-09-12 09:32 PM | Reply

How many insurance co. will bail on payments for this one?

With federal approval of course.

#5 | Posted by bat4255 at 2017-09-12 10:07 PM | Reply

glad, the states rights anti-federalist Texans wont be coming to the feds with their hands out.

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-09-13 01:06 AM | Reply

I say let the free market sort it out.

It's Texas. They love them some free market in Texas.

#7 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-09-13 04:07 AM | Reply

#2
Are you channeling Paul Krugman?

#8 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-09-13 08:18 AM | Reply

IIRC, natural disasters benefit the national economy. Destruction isn't accounted for in GDP calculations.

#2 | POSTED BY GONOLES92 AT 2017-09-12 08:16 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Natural disasters will benefit one part of the nation and economy at the expense of another part.

It is all a zero sum game as money will be taken from somewhere else to pay for it. Many people will lose everything as insurance companies will not pay for the flood damage and FEMA will take a decade to pay out. Sandy victims in NY and NJ still have not been paid. But fatso's NJ tourism commercial was paid out of Sandy relief funds no problem.

People have lost their cars, their homes and most of their belongings. Many will never recover. Many will go bankrupt. Many will drain their retirement savings to attempt to recover.

There are no benefits to a natural disaster aside from a few industries that will rush in and rape the victims.

There will profiteers that will rush into Houston to gouge victims for everything from cars to repairs. Then there will be the secondary victims who will buy retitled flood cars all over the nation sold cheap as "Southern cars, never seen a winter."

So yeah, there will be some winners, but everyone else loses. Especially when insurance companies have to raise premiums.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2017-09-13 08:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Rebuilding, first and foremost, seems like a good path to take :)."

Here we see the mind of a conservative.

Don't worry about suffering and financial ruin to regular people. Corporations will make billions of the reconstruction!

#10 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-09-13 08:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

Meanwhile Texas Governor Abbott and others don't seem to want to use the state's $10B 'Rainy Day' fund. Since when is a hurricane NOT a rainy day?

#11 | Posted by catdog at 2017-09-13 08:56 AM | Reply

Let's cut taxes to pay for it!! - republican mathematicians

#12 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-13 09:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Since when is a hurricane NOT a rainy day?

#11 | POSTED BY CATDOG AT 2017-09-13 08:56 AM | FLAG:

Well most of it would go to the little people, so ---- them is the GOP answer.

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2017-09-13 09:36 AM | Reply

"How many insurance co. will bail on payments for this one?"

bail?

what do you mean? go into receivership and let the State manage the payouts?

I don't know. Most carrier defaults are the result of not underwriting a risk over a period of time correctly. Environmental, work comp, etc...very hard to underwrite risks at times. Not a single storm.

Understand..virtually all insurance companies reinsure risks above certain thresholds. I'm not hearing much about the reinsurance markets getting hit with this so I don't expect any serious carrier failings.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 09:48 AM | Reply

"Don't worry about suffering and financial ruin to regular people. Corporations will make billions of the reconstruction!"

Oh, so this was bad and you cried about it like now?

en.wikipedia.org

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 09:52 AM | Reply

"insurance companies will not pay for the flood damage"

in many affected areas they will pay for "hurricane" damage.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 09:53 AM | Reply

"#15 | POSTED BY EBERLY "

nice try liar and hypocrite and strawman extraordinaire. the stimulus package of 2009 (which had bipartisan support and first discussed by Bush Jr.) was about preventing more financial ruin which would hurt regular people as well as the corporates (too big to fail)

we can argue that people should have gone to jail that ran these corps.. i'd agree.

but even in hindsight, it seems the stimulus worked.. in fact the republicans are taking credit for the economic uptrend who's fruits we see in 2017.

#17 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-09-13 10:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

$290 billion? Perfect timing for tax cuts!

#18 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2017-09-13 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

17

Weak retort.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 12:04 PM | Reply

Rebuilding, first and foremost, seems like a good path to take :).

#4 | Posted by GOnoles92

You missed the point completely.

If we hadn't spent the last 40 years denying climate science, we wouldn't have to spend so much on climate change disasters and we'd have that money available for all sorts of things.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-13 01:34 PM | Reply

Don't worry about suffering and financial ruin to regular people. Corporations will make billions of the reconstruction! #10 | POSTED BY KLIFFERD

how do you propose to rebuild people's homes, without a company rebuilding those people's homes? Lmao.

#21 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-09-13 01:50 PM | Reply

If we hadn't spent the last 40 years denying climate science, we wouldn't have to spend so much on climate change disasters and we'd have that money available for all sorts of things.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

1) 40 years ago Carter was wearing sweaters and put solar panels on the White House because the planet was cooling.

2) The reason that Hurricanes are getting more expensive is because the NFIP guarantees that the rest of us will pay for coastal elites to continue to build and rebuild codos and mansions in areas they know will be destroyed by hurricanes. For many a hurricane is an opportunity to remodel and expand. Get rid of the NFIP and those that want to live on the beach have to pay fair markets rates for their little slice of paradise.

#22 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-09-13 02:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"how do you propose to rebuild people's homes, without a company rebuilding those people's homes? Lmao."

I don't think he's thought that far.

He thinks the insurance industry paying billions upon billions to rebuild homes is bad because someone suffers but the billions upon billions in a stimulus package is good.

It's rank hypocrisy at best. But I think it's really just his ignorance of what is really happening.

Perhaps he doesn't understand risk and the concept of risk transfer

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 02:47 PM | Reply

1) 40 years ago Carter was wearing sweaters and put solar panels on the White House because the planet was cooling.

2) The reason that Hurricanes are getting more expensive is because the NFIP guarantees that the rest of us will pay for coastal elites to continue to build and rebuild codos and mansions in areas they know will be destroyed by hurricanes. For many a hurricane is an opportunity to remodel and expand. Get rid of the NFIP and those that want to live on the beach have to pay fair markets rates for their little slice of paradise.

#22 | Posted by bogey1355

40 years ago scientists (including the ones hired by exxon) knew burning C02 would change the climate. Today we know even more. Well most of us do. Republicans are still busy trying to pretend it's a hoax or not worth trying to prevent.

NFIP did not make Harvey the largest rain event in history. Burning fossil fuels did.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-13 03:19 PM | Reply

Just think about all those jobs for the un/underemployed. I wonder how many couch dwelling keyboard commandos will quit bitching about not having a job and take up the call to go to work?

#25 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-09-13 03:28 PM | Reply

I guess that's the new argument for burning fossil fuels - climate change catastrophe rebuilding is a jobs program!

At least they're moving past denying that it's happening...40 years too late.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-13 03:44 PM | Reply

the rest of us will pay for coastal elites

I find it funny how much Republicans love the rich. The job creators. The builders and founders of this nation.

Until you call them "Costal Elites". Then they're evil!!!

Koch Bros are great people. Costal elites are snobs.

Lol!

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What's truly remarkable is Donnie Drumpsterfire (a New York costal elite), is using Irma as a reason to pass his tax cuts.

And I'm sure his constituents are in full agreement

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-09-13 04:31 PM | Reply

I would think that progressives would love themselves some natural disasters. That $290 million is going to go directly from the insurance companies into rebuilding and rebuying.

For a lot of people, Christmas '17 is going to be epic.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-13 05:16 PM | Reply

I would think that progressives would love themselves some natural disasters. That $290 million is going to go directly from the insurance companies into rebuilding and rebuying.
For a lot of people, Christmas '17 is going to be epic.

#29 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-09-13 05:16 PM | REPLY

The $290 billion is the value of what was destroyed. There is no $290 billion windfall. That money is just gone. If your car gets destroyed and you have to replace it out of your own pocket, can you call that an epic christmas?

#30 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-13 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The $290 billion is the value of what was destroyed. There is no $290 billion windfall. That money is just gone. If your car gets destroyed and you have to replace it out of your own pocket, can you call that an epic christmas?

#30 | Posted by hatter5183

Trump supporters don't excel in math or logic.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-13 05:58 PM | Reply

"The $290 billion is the value of what was destroyed. There is no $290 billion windfall. That money is just gone. If your car gets destroyed and you have to replace it out of your own pocket, can you call that an epic christmas?"

I guess you don't understand the concept of insurance, do you. Most people carry it on items of value. So yes, there is a windfall. Likely less than the full $290B, but still Yuuge!

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-13 05:58 PM | Reply

Unless you're an insurance company, then it's going to be a very bad Christmas. Lots of pay-outs. But I'm OK with that.

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-13 05:59 PM | Reply

Unless you're an insurance company, then it's going to be a very bad Christmas. Lots of pay-outs. But I'm OK with that.

#33 | Posted by madbomber

And then how to the insurance companies make their money back?

Here's a hint - from everybody.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-13 06:04 PM | Reply

"Unless you're an insurance company, then it's going to be a very bad Christmas"

Thank goodness I'm far away from that disaster.

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2017-09-13 06:07 PM | Reply

BLOTUS has a brilliant plan to pay for the hurricane damage.

#36 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2017-09-13 06:49 PM | Reply

There is no documentation supporting the alleged number. No way to confirm the $290 billion estimate. My ----------- policy which costs $2200 a year has a $5500 deductible, so I will get zilch. Please send ice immediately.

#37 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-09-13 06:53 PM | Reply

I suspect that a lot of construction labor around here will be headed to Texas and Florida. Since my part of construction is specialized and finishing work I suspect that we'll be slowing down as home builders start falling behind schedule due to a lack of labor. Maybe wages will get high enough to pull some unemployed into the market. Not sure though wages already went up 14% this year I don't know how much higher they can go without affecting the finished cost of a house.

#38 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-09-13 07:19 PM | Reply

. Most people carry it on items of value. So yes, there is a windfall. Likely less than the full $290B, but still Yuuge!

#32 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-09-13 05:58 PM | REPLY

Not necessarily. 80% of flooded homes in the Houston area did not have flood insurance. So not so Yuuge after all....

#39 | Posted by bartimus at 2017-09-13 07:47 PM | Reply

"40 years ago Carter was wearing sweaters and put solar panels on the White House because the planet was cooling."

You know there is a video, and he says nothing about "global cooling" right? Right? You realize the problem was something else right?

youtu.be

#40 | Posted by dibblda at 2017-09-13 08:37 PM | Reply

And then how to the insurance companies make their money back?

They don't need to make it back. They already have. I could have paid for several vehicles, or one really expensive one, just with the difference between what I've paid in car insurance and what they've paid me back in return.

"Not necessarily. 80% of flooded homes in the Houston area did not have flood insurance. So not so Yuuge after all...."

Are you asserting that 80% of the homes in Houston are going to go unrepaired?

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-09-13 09:31 PM | Reply

NFIP did not make Harvey the largest rain event in history. Burning fossil fuels did. - #24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-13 03:19 PM
You have any link showing Harvey the largest rain event in history?
I've seen that it's the rainiest tropical storm in the lower 48 states.
You'll notice a lot of wiggle-words in that, though: limited to 48 states and tropical storms only. It's been rainier in Hawaii. Not to mention cyclone season in Asia.

#42 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-09-14 08:52 AM | Reply

#42 | Posted by Avigdore

www.washingtonpost.com

Harvey marks the most extreme rain event in U.S. history
John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas state climatologist, said a rain gauge near Mont Belvieu at Cedar Bayou, about 40 miles east of Houston, had registered 51.9 inches of rain through late Tuesday afternoon. This total exceeds the previous record of 48 inches set during tropical cyclone Amelia in Medina, Texas in 1978.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 01:07 PM | Reply

And then how to the insurance companies make their money back?
They don't need to make it back. They already have. I could have paid for several vehicles, or one really expensive one, just with the difference between what I've paid in car insurance and what they've paid me back in return.
"Not necessarily. 80% of flooded homes in the Houston area did not have flood insurance. So not so Yuuge after all...."
Are you asserting that 80% of the homes in Houston are going to go unrepaired?

#41 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-09-13 09:31 PM | REPLY

No he and I are asserting that 80% of the homes will not be repaired by insurance money. They will be repaired by the homeowners going more deeply in debt or selling at a loss. Many of these people will go bankrupt saddled with a mortgage but no home and no way to rebuild.

We have seen this before. The rich will rebuild, the poor and middle class will end up getting screwed again when they are forced to sell for pennies on the dollar and some other rich people will come in and extract more money from the middle class by flipping these homes.

#44 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-14 01:11 PM | Reply

@#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 01:07 PM
Did you really link back the exact same link that I cited above with the quotes that I used to disprove the original statement? Do some due diligence. Maybe read past the headline? I'm embarrassed for you.
Here, let me help. From your article (that I posted earlier):
"the greatest amount ever recorded in the Lower 48 states from a single storm"
"Hawaii mountain peaks have reported higher rainfall totals"
"Hurricane Harvey is now the rainiest tropical storm in the Lower 48"
"Hawaii has logged isolated reports of greater amounts at high elevations from tropical systems"

#45 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-09-14 02:24 PM | Reply

"Hawaii has logged isolated reports of greater amounts at high elevations from tropical systems"

#45 | Posted by Avigdore

Texas aint hawaii.

This was a record breaking amount of rainfall because of climate change. The models predict this will happen more and more.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 02:32 PM | Reply

It was a record breaking amount because the storm was slow moving. Divide the storms speed of travel by 100 and you get a very good projection of rainfall amount. It was moving 3 to 4 mph past here and we got 37 inches. It slowed east of Houston and places like Mont Belvieu ended up with 50 inches.

Also, buyouts are already under way, so the social justice activists can step back, take a breath, and wait to see if the poor & middle class neighborhoods don't get them. So far it appears that they will.

#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-14 02:48 PM | Reply

It was a record breaking amount because the storm was slow moving. Divide the storms speed of travel by 100 and you get a very good projection of rainfall amount. It was moving 3 to 4 mph past here and we got 37 inches. It slowed east of Houston and places like Mont Belvieu ended up with 50 inches.

#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Storms have been slow moving before. They haven't been slow moving over oceans which are this warm due to climate change before, which is why the rainfall was more than ever before.

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 03:02 PM | Reply

False. It rained more in 1935.

#49 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-14 05:12 PM | Reply

False. It rained more in 1935.

#49 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Gosh, who to believe, you or the National Weather Service? I just don't know...

www.vox.com

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 05:48 PM | Reply

I guess you don't understand the concept of insurance, do you. Most people carry it on items of value. So yes, there is a windfall. Likely less than the full $290B, but still Yuuge!

#32 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-09-13 05:58 PM | REPLY

I think you are the one who doesn't understand insurance. Only federal flood insurance pays so much as a penny for flood damage. It doesn't matter how valuable your things are private insurance rarely covers and if they do it is prohibitively expensive because as we can see payouts tend to happen in large areas simultaneously and insurance companies can't afford to take the risk of being wiped out by one major event. Fires, robberies, even tornadoes are confined to relatively small areas so they can spread the premiums among the non-claimants. Floods? not so much

#51 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-09-14 05:58 PM | Reply

@#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-14 05:48 PM
Your second article is as much as a failure as your first. Are you really not reading them?
Here's a quote from it:
Harvey has broken the record for the greatest amount of rain recorded from a single tropical storm or hurricane in the continental United States
So certainly not the "most extreme rain event in U.S. history", as the US is greater than just the continental US.
You made the statement "NFIP did not make Harvey the largest rain event in history. Burning fossil fuels did."
You've been proven wrong in your OWN citations. It's ok to admit when you've made a mistake.

#52 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-09-14 10:33 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort