6 ms·

Even being a free marketeer, building codes are one of the few government interventions that have had huge positive impact on society (i know, i know, there are

by jpcx01 17y ago

Even being a free marketeer, building codes are one of the few government interventions that have had huge positive impact on society (i know, i know, there are others as well).

dpatru 17y ago
To the extent that people want earthquake/tsunami insurance, building codes could just as well be administered by insurance companies. (A structure that doesn't meet the insurance company's code would be more expensive to insure.) Also, insurance companies, because they have an incentive to mitigate their risk, would likely be quicker to adapt codes to new technology and information. If an idea is good, it doesn't require government, that is, people don't have to be forced to adopt good ideas.
- andrewcooke 17y ago
  how would that work when most people here in chile don't have building insurance? seriously. i live here.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    What do you mean by "most people"? Most buildings, most renters, most landlords, most owners...? An average of 2 7.0 earthquakes in this small country each decade and buildings aren't insured?
    - b1tr0t 17y ago
      That's the point exactly. What insurance company would offer earthquake insurance at a price that an average citizen could afford in such circumstances.
      - Semiapies 17y ago
        No, that's begging the point.
    - algorias 17y ago
      Small country in population, not length (over 4000 km). The previous major earthquake in Chile (Iquique) didn't affect the central and southern regions at all. Besides, the fact that authorities care about earthquake prevention doesn't mean that consumers do (not at the time of buying property, anyway)
    - brazzy 17y ago
      Presumably he meant that most owners of buildings do not buy insurance (and who else would?). And yeah, it's amazing just how little a risk of total loss once every couple of decades (no single quake hits the entire country, especially in Chile) means to people, compared with a substantial monthly or yearly bill.
      - Semiapies 17y ago
        Presumption is one thing; details and substantiation, another.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        andrewcooke 17y ago
        i've replied twice to this and deleted both because it's difficult not to be rude. so can i just suggest that, in the future, before you tell other cultures how to live, you do the research?
        Semiapies 17y ago
        "before you tell other cultures how to live" I didn't. I asked you exactly what you meant, as I am skeptical of your vague claim, especially when it comes to details I mentioned above. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to stand by your words in a civil way. EDIT: Folks, vote this down as far as you like. I don't take kindly to someone pulling an accusation of racism out of his ass because I had the effrontery to question him.
- brazzy 17y ago
  Your trust in people's rationality and long-term thinking is rather sweet, but history disagrees. Case in point: seat belts. Proven to be life-saving devices, but people just wouldn't wear them because "how dare you suggest I am a bad driver?!?" As for insurance companies - between people simply doing without insurance because those meddlesome insurance companies have all those ridiculous requirements and insurers making a quick buck by competing on low requirements and going bankrupt when the quake hits, you'd be asking for government regulation pretty quickly.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Municipalities would miss out on a lot of traffic ticket money if laws made people wear seatbelts; not the best example.
    - lmkg 17y ago
      The legislation requiring automobiles to include seat belts[1] was passed at the federal level, not at the municipal level. At the municipal level, resources are also put into seat belt education campaigns and PSAs, which if effective would lower the availability of scofflaws as a potential revenue source. So yes, it's still a valid example. (I assume you meant type type "if laws didn't make people..." or equivalent) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehi...
      - Semiapies 17y ago
        "I assume you meant type type "if laws didn't make people..." or equivalent" How would that even make sense?
        lmkg 17y ago
        Your original comment: > "Municipalities would miss out on a lot of traffic ticket money if laws made people wear seatbelts; not the best example." I thought that the original sentiment you meant to express was that municipalities have an economic incentive to create seatbelt laws, in order to fine people who break them, with the implication being that seat belt laws are made for selfish reasons, not reasons related to the public well-being. I parsed the sentence, as written, as saying that the presence of an additional fine-worthy offense would somehow lower the amount of fine-generated revenue, and inferred the mistaken absence of a negation. After scrutinizing your comment and follow-up for some time, it's possible to parse the sentence as saying that if seatbelt laws were more effective at making people wear seat belts, this would reduce revenue. This sentence, while correct, does not seem more than tangentially related in context of replying to the parent. Perhaps you can clarify if I'm missing something.
- philwelch 17y ago
  There's problems when other people's buildings collapse, too. A large proportion of the population lives, works, and otherwise spends time in buildings which they don't own and don't have any convenient way of telling whether they're earthquake-insured or not. And buildings don't necessarily collapse neatly--they damage adjacent and nearby property as well. There's a huge public good in everyone being fairly confident that nearly every structure in the country is properly constructed.
- imgabe 17y ago
  Building codes ARE administered by insurance companies. The insurance industry is the main reason we have building codes. The organizations that maintain the codes (e.g. the National Fire Prevention Association which maintains the National Electric Code) is a nonprofit, non-governmental organization made up of people from the insurance and construction industries. These codes are then adopted into law by various municipalities, possibly with amendments. The government itself doesn't write the code though.
- smcq 17y ago
  In this post, we see the strange assumption that large corporations inherently make more efficient bureaucrats than elected officials.
- camccann 17y ago
  Ugh. My experience is that insurance companies are one of the few institutions that somehow manage to be even more bloated and bureaucratic than the government.

by jpcx01 17y ago

Even being a free marketeer, building codes are one of the few government interventions that have had huge positive impact on society (i know, i know, there are others as well).

dpatru 17y ago

To the extent that people want earthquake/tsunami insurance, building codes could just as well be administered by insurance companies. (A structure that doesn't meet the insurance company's code would be more expensive to insure.) Also, insurance companies, because they have an incentive to mitigate their risk, would likely be quicker to adapt codes to new technology and information. If an idea is good, it doesn't require government, that is, people don't have to be forced to adopt good ideas.

andrewcooke 17y ago
how would that work when most people here in chile don't have building insurance? seriously. i live here.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  What do you mean by "most people"? Most buildings, most renters, most landlords, most owners...? An average of 2 7.0 earthquakes in this small country each decade and buildings aren't insured?
  - b1tr0t 17y ago
    That's the point exactly. What insurance company would offer earthquake insurance at a price that an average citizen could afford in such circumstances.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      No, that's begging the point.
  - algorias 17y ago
    Small country in population, not length (over 4000 km). The previous major earthquake in Chile (Iquique) didn't affect the central and southern regions at all. Besides, the fact that authorities care about earthquake prevention doesn't mean that consumers do (not at the time of buying property, anyway)
  - brazzy 17y ago
    Presumably he meant that most owners of buildings do not buy insurance (and who else would?). And yeah, it's amazing just how little a risk of total loss once every couple of decades (no single quake hits the entire country, especially in Chile) means to people, compared with a substantial monthly or yearly bill.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      Presumption is one thing; details and substantiation, another.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - andrewcooke 17y ago
        i've replied twice to this and deleted both because it's difficult not to be rude. so can i just suggest that, in the future, before you tell other cultures how to live, you do the research?
        Semiapies 17y ago
        "before you tell other cultures how to live" I didn't. I asked you exactly what you meant, as I am skeptical of your vague claim, especially when it comes to details I mentioned above. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to stand by your words in a civil way. EDIT: Folks, vote this down as far as you like. I don't take kindly to someone pulling an accusation of racism out of his ass because I had the effrontery to question him.
brazzy 17y ago
Your trust in people's rationality and long-term thinking is rather sweet, but history disagrees. Case in point: seat belts. Proven to be life-saving devices, but people just wouldn't wear them because "how dare you suggest I am a bad driver?!?" As for insurance companies - between people simply doing without insurance because those meddlesome insurance companies have all those ridiculous requirements and insurers making a quick buck by competing on low requirements and going bankrupt when the quake hits, you'd be asking for government regulation pretty quickly.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Municipalities would miss out on a lot of traffic ticket money if laws made people wear seatbelts; not the best example.
  - lmkg 17y ago
    The legislation requiring automobiles to include seat belts[1] was passed at the federal level, not at the municipal level. At the municipal level, resources are also put into seat belt education campaigns and PSAs, which if effective would lower the availability of scofflaws as a potential revenue source. So yes, it's still a valid example. (I assume you meant type type "if laws didn't make people..." or equivalent) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehi...
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      "I assume you meant type type "if laws didn't make people..." or equivalent" How would that even make sense?
      - lmkg 17y ago
        Your original comment: > "Municipalities would miss out on a lot of traffic ticket money if laws made people wear seatbelts; not the best example." I thought that the original sentiment you meant to express was that municipalities have an economic incentive to create seatbelt laws, in order to fine people who break them, with the implication being that seat belt laws are made for selfish reasons, not reasons related to the public well-being. I parsed the sentence, as written, as saying that the presence of an additional fine-worthy offense would somehow lower the amount of fine-generated revenue, and inferred the mistaken absence of a negation. After scrutinizing your comment and follow-up for some time, it's possible to parse the sentence as saying that if seatbelt laws were more effective at making people wear seat belts, this would reduce revenue. This sentence, while correct, does not seem more than tangentially related in context of replying to the parent. Perhaps you can clarify if I'm missing something.
philwelch 17y ago
There's problems when other people's buildings collapse, too. A large proportion of the population lives, works, and otherwise spends time in buildings which they don't own and don't have any convenient way of telling whether they're earthquake-insured or not. And buildings don't necessarily collapse neatly--they damage adjacent and nearby property as well. There's a huge public good in everyone being fairly confident that nearly every structure in the country is properly constructed.
imgabe 17y ago
Building codes ARE administered by insurance companies. The insurance industry is the main reason we have building codes. The organizations that maintain the codes (e.g. the National Fire Prevention Association which maintains the National Electric Code) is a nonprofit, non-governmental organization made up of people from the insurance and construction industries. These codes are then adopted into law by various municipalities, possibly with amendments. The government itself doesn't write the code though.
smcq 17y ago
In this post, we see the strange assumption that large corporations inherently make more efficient bureaucrats than elected officials.
camccann 17y ago
Ugh. My experience is that insurance companies are one of the few institutions that somehow manage to be even more bloated and bureaucratic than the government.