3 ms·
>Flood insurance could guard against the financial damage of a storm, but is useless to address the problems that evacuations are meant to address It does if l
by notatoad 9y ago
>Flood insurance could guard against the financial damage of a storm, but is useless to address the problems that evacuations are meant to address
It does if legally required - the point isn't to finance the evacuation, it's to make living in a flood plain financially unattractive. It's the "let the market decide" approach to disaster planning, by pricing in the cost of disaster instead of externalizing it to FEMA and the Red Cross.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoThe risk of death is already priced in; FEMA and the Red Cross aren't helping with it.
- Dylan16807 9y agoIt's not priced in. People are more likely to just hope it doesn't happen to them. If you force both insurance and evacuations then the risks are actually priced in, with deaths minimized and a constant cost of living bump instead of tons of people gambling their lives and livelihood.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago> It's not priced in. People are more likely to just hope it doesn't happen to them. That doesn't establish that it isn't priced in. It establishes that the value people place on their own lives isn't as high as you think it should be.
- Dylan16807 9y agoThis applies to things like houses with objective values too. People don't treat risks rationally.