disaster and disaster

Before I start writing about disasters, I want to say that because of the snow, I have been working from home quite a bit, and yesterday I thoroughly enjoyed watching prime minister questions. it has to be one of my favourite "show." By the way, it was the session where Gorden Brown kept going on about David Cameron's poster.

Haiti is the second poorest country in the west I was told by the news reporter, I'm sure it's THE poorest now. presumably people know this all along - that Haiti is poor and has 200 years of misery, it's not as if there's an earthquake, and all the statisticians and historians work overnight to produce the facts that Haiti is in a bad state. you get my point, people know this all the time. and surely, people know that Haiti is on the Carabian fault line, it's not as if the geologists work over night again to find this out. what I do not get then is this: why wasn't the standard of living improved before disaster strikes? easier said than done. if there's no earthquake, people will say "well there are poor everywhere, even in the USA there are people who are forced out of their home to live on the streets" etc. after an earthquake, a spike of emotions comes, so everyone rushes to donate, and a huge amount of money can be collected. financially speaking, if this huge sum of money and effort was used before the earthquake, to build the structures, I think rescue operation can be much less painful and financially more worthwhile too.