I’m assuming you’re also not in the business of having long fundamental disagreements on days old posts so I won’t try to convince you, but just so you can see

I’m assuming you’re also not in the business of having long fundamental disagreements on days old posts so I won’t try to convince you, but just so you can see my perspective: I think you’re focusing too much on the microeconomic dynamics in your defense of the system, when we want a macroeconomic overhaul. In other words, at some level socializing that risk to solve this huge inequity. I think you’d agree that we could fund a national/regional/global system that would provide a sufficient safety net for a system where everyone is paying into some kind of equity for their land. You just don’t agree that it’s worth it / sets the right incentives / a bunch of other reasons I could never think of that I’m sure are sound. But I hope you see why taking the “but everything’s on fire!!!!” macro perspective is appealing in theory :)