As many of you may have already heard, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake hit the city of Christchurch, New Zealand today. The disastrous earthquake killed at least 75 people while burying many others underneath the rubble of fallen buildings, with hundreds of people reported missing. Prime Minister John Key has requested for New Zealand's parliament to declare a state of emergency for the country. Downtown Christchurch was hit the hardest, with many people trapped under collapsed buildings.
The United States has deployed " a U.S Agency for International Development Disaster Assistance Response Team." President Obama has offered condolences on behalf of the United States to people affected by this natural disaster.
The city of Christchurch is no stranger to earthquakes, having experienced a 7.1 magnitude earthquake just five months ago which resulted in $3.8 million in damages. The recent quake has virtually erased rebuilding efforts, with more rebuilding needed in the city. The earthquake also could not have really come at a worse time with New Zealand's economy faltering with debt issues. However, economists predict that the rebuilding efforts in New Zealand will help with economic improvement through new jobs and investments. What do you guys think? Do you look for things in New Zealand to improve? Does this disaster compare with any other major natural disaster?
5 comments:
Even though this a tragedy for the people of Christchurch, I agree that this earthquake could help to stimulate the economy of New Zealand. New Zealand has the beneficial advantage of being an industrialized nation, if this earthquake had occured in a poorer country it would have been far more damaging financially. While the earthquake could not have been avoided, I believe this earthquake could be somewhat beneficial to New Zealand, probably moreso if lives had not been lost.
Maybe this could aid New Zealand with more jobs, but are there enough people in the country to help rebuild?
Of course more jobs will be created through this disasterous earthquake, but are there enough qualified people to help rebuild?
And I agree with Laura's statement, another country could have experienced the same effects and be much worse off, at least financally.
My first reaction after seeing the title of this article was "I hope that their rugby team is alright." Not a very good first thought. But I feel sorry for the families of those who lost loved ones. But thinking optimistacally, I think that New Zealand's economy will benefit from the new jobs. It will bring more work for more people and those people will be less stingny to buy things which will make it better for business. I hope New Zealend gets better soon however. This earthquake reminds me of what happened in Haiti. I still hope the people there are doing well now too. It seems like natural disasters are becoming more and more frequent. Who knows what will happen next? It's projected that San Francisco is suppose to have a big earthquake too, hopefully we are all prepared.
I have a friend who used to live in the city that was hit. It was a devastating blow to her. :(
There will be no shortage of people willing to help rebuild, if the government allows it. I wish I could fly down myself and give my all to help.
New Zealand being an industrialized country definitely means that it can recover much more quickly, but would the earthquake have caused as much damage if the country was poorer? It was only a 6.3 earthquake, but it hit a major population center in the middle of the day and caused far more damage than would have been expected from an earthquake of this magnitude. And of course, seeing such a developed country devastated by a disaster like this hits us closer to home.
My heart goes out to all the people affected. May the recovery be smooth and quick.
I agree with the general sentiment that New Zealand will recover relatively quickly because it is a developed country; it takes order to have an efficient rebuilding effort, and there is no indication that the reconstruction effort will be extremely chaotic or unorganized.
However, I would have to disagree with Jack's notion that a similar earthquake in a poorer country would have been less devastating. On the contrary, I would argue that it would have been MORE devastating, because of the poor infrastructure in place. Using Haiti as evidence, I would assert that poorer countries would have fewer medical facilities, less medicine itself, fewer ways of helping its citizens recover financially and physically, and less infrastructure to transport relief supplies. Poor countries can be just as dense as developed countries.
I'm not sure that this will stimulate the economy. Doesn't the government have to spend a large sum of money to help finance the rebuilding effort? Will that not stifle growth (or at least the government's ability to function fully) in the future?
Post a Comment