5 ms·

yup, passing that power on to insurance companies is just a different bureaucracy doing similar things, solving nothing more in the process. all parties togethe

yup, passing that power on to insurance companies is just a different bureaucracy doing similar things, solving nothing more in the process. all parties together and separately need to be involved and invested in maintaining reasonably safe environments, not just an arms-length bureaucracy. our failure is in trying to pawn off all responsibility to remote agencies and institutions, raher than the parts best-suited for them (bureaucracies are reasonably good at following rules and doing the same thing over and over), and accepting that we can't each absolve ourselves from some of that responsibility. we want some best-suited regulation, the minimum needed to achieve reasonable safety, and no less, but also no more. regulation isn't good for every tiny tail risk we can imagine, as we see with the housing crisis (in major cities).

maerF0x0 6y ago
> is just a different bureaucracy doing similar things, A key difference in this bureaucracy is their speed of change. Companies can react rapidly to new technology, new scenarios, and they do so on an economic model. Gov'ts move slowly and lag technology or current events, they do so on a popularity/political power model.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  True, but then companies are only accountable to their shareholders in many cases, and spend money on lobbyists to keep things that way. Economic models can vary widely depending on whether they're based around mutuality or extraction of rents.
  - maerF0x0 6y ago
    > mutuality or extraction of rents. bigger governments create more rent opportunities. https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/introduction-rent-seeking https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/introduction-rent-seekin...
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  > A key difference in this bureaucracy is their speed of change. Companies can react rapidly to new technology, new scenarios, and they do so on an economic model. Additionally- companies can react intentionally slowly to squander and choke new technologies and scenarios, also doing so on an economic model.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    But companies have competitors. If one insurance company requires an unnecessarily burdensome design (or charges unreasonable premiums without it) while another allows a more efficient design which is equally safe, customers will prefer the latter and the former will adapt or lose business. If the government requires an unnecessarily burdensome design, you're screwed.
  - maerF0x0 6y ago
    > squander and choke new technologies and scenarios, also doing so on an economic model. If they do so then said technologies were not real opportunities. If they're opportunities then competitors will generate more value and/or less cost.

maerF0x0 6y ago

> is just a different bureaucracy doing similar things, A key difference in this bureaucracy is their speed of change. Companies can react rapidly to new technology, new scenarios, and they do so on an economic model. Gov'ts move slowly and lag technology or current events, they do so on a popularity/political power model.

anigbrowl 6y ago
True, but then companies are only accountable to their shareholders in many cases, and spend money on lobbyists to keep things that way. Economic models can vary widely depending on whether they're based around mutuality or extraction of rents.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  > mutuality or extraction of rents. bigger governments create more rent opportunities. https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/introduction-rent-seeking https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/introduction-rent-seekin...
TeaDrunk 6y ago
> A key difference in this bureaucracy is their speed of change. Companies can react rapidly to new technology, new scenarios, and they do so on an economic model. Additionally- companies can react intentionally slowly to squander and choke new technologies and scenarios, also doing so on an economic model.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  But companies have competitors. If one insurance company requires an unnecessarily burdensome design (or charges unreasonable premiums without it) while another allows a more efficient design which is equally safe, customers will prefer the latter and the former will adapt or lose business. If the government requires an unnecessarily burdensome design, you're screwed.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  > squander and choke new technologies and scenarios, also doing so on an economic model. If they do so then said technologies were not real opportunities. If they're opportunities then competitors will generate more value and/or less cost.