On 9/1/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 07:07 AM Thursday 9/1/2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > >Russell Chapman wrote: > > > > > > Under marshall law, in a state of emergency (and I understand both > > > have been declared) these people should be rounded up and used as > > > labour to clean up flooded hospitals or something. Makes me so angry > > > to think of some small business owner who is going to come in when > > > he sorts out his home, only to find someone thought they deserved to > > > just take the stock. > > > > >Those looters should at least show some ethics, like demolishing > >the looted stores to their grounds - this would even make the > >owners thankful, because they would get full insurance for the > >stores. > > > Anyone who is looting big-screen TVs, computers, DVDs, and other > high-ticket electronic items from stores in an area where there is no > electricity and there is not likely to be electricity for weeks at the > earliest (more likely months) has already shown evidence of somewhat > less-than-perfect reasoning . . . > > > -- Ronn! :) >
Perfectly rational: the transportation costs of getting those items to a location where it would be useful are far smaller than the cost of the items themselves, if they were purchased in an area with electricity. And the value of those items are still enough to make the effort of looting worthwhile even after a few months of non-use. ~Maru _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
