Over time, the Mississippi River bottom literally gets "muddied up". The result is the depth of the Mississippi gets shallower and shallower. Today we see the result of that shallow depth as the midwest experiences monstrous floods unseen in at least 15 years.
Some people like to rationalize that floods are good for the economy. Insurance money "floods" the area and people go forward with the task of rebuilding their lives, hiring contractors who in turn purchase supplies, and so on.
While one can agree that there is sort of a perverse economic insurance funded bounce after a tragedy, I doubt that the actual net affect is a good one. How about Wall Street actually supporting the revitalization of the Mississipi River by having it dredged several feet deeper. I would assume that the mud at the base of the Mississippi River is actually good potting and planting soil, no?
Why can't Wall Street just create an industry that actually maintains the Mississippi River and in the process prevents flooding, damage to billions of dollars worth of real estate, reduces Insurance Industry costs, and creates a made in america product? Or should I say Mud in America. Mississippi Mud would probably would be coveted in the United States, especially with so many people starting to grow their own fruits and vegetables.
If you are an expert in the field of flood management and want to refute my position, please do so in the comments section. I just want to understand why Wall Street can't create a win win win situation within the United States, but happily will bilk indebted american citizens to the tune of 30% credit card interest rate charges, and then use that money to invest in economies outside of the United States. How about Wall Street start helping the very people they are overcharging and underserving.