I’m not so sure about that. But in any event, it’s hard to compare large scale development of major ports, like New Orleans, to selling homes to unqualified buyers.
There are two questions: is the economic growth that occurs because of development of places like New Orleans more than the cost of the subsidy? If so, then we should institute a subsidy. Subsidies aren’t all bad.
The second question, now that we have a subsidy and have decided that we may not like it, is how to go about eliminating the subsidy with the least amount of damage, given that people have made purchasing decisions in reliance on the subsidy?
These aren’t easy questions. Anyone who says so is fooling themselves.
I’m not talking about New Orleans. I’m talking about development in the flood plains of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, for one. If you build it, it will flood.