5 ms·
> I see you are not opposed to government intervention, you just want it in a different form. That's right - I want it in a reduced, more efficient form. Pers
by MarkMc 9y ago
> I see you are not opposed to government intervention, you just want it in a different form.
That's right - I want it in a reduced, more efficient form.
Personally I don't think the government should bail out property damage of people whose risks go bad and who don't have insurance. But I can accept that maybe this is the minority opinion - but even in this case it's still more efficient for people to be forced to buy private insurance rather than have the government say 'you must pay us $X flood risk premium' or 'you cannot build here'. Private insurance companies (with money on the line) will more accurately assess flood risks than a government official (who has no financial interest in the accuracy of his assessment).
- mannykannot 9y agoWe have been down this route with flood insurance, so we know what happens - the electorate pressures the legislature to make insurance available at below-market rates, which it does by interfering in the market. As the notably conservative states along the Gulf coast have not done anything to make the situation truly market-driven, it is unrealistic to think of this as a solution. Maybe if the legislature did not have to respond to the populace... is that the more efficient form of government you prefer?
- MarkMc 9y agoThere are plenty of examples in history where the majority opinion changes, even with regard to deep, long-held ideas. In any case it's reasonable to support a policy on principle, even if it's unlikely to be implemented.