2 ms·

Compare this to California regulating how much insurance companies can charge. IN that case, its lead to horrendous side effects where insurance companies are l

Compare this to California regulating how much insurance companies can charge. IN that case, its lead to horrendous side effects where insurance companies are leaving the state, dropping customers, etc because they will literally lose money on the policies, which has lead to bad outcomes. Id rather that the state actually pay for the things it wants and not put in a bunch of hidden taxes that have strong distortions on principle.

fn-mote 2y ago
Call me when you have a free market economy delivering broadband. You don’t. The situations are not comparable.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Call me when these type of indirect unfunded mandates ever succeed at squeezing blood out of the corpo stone, or when they don't end up entrenching the existing corpos. Broadband is indeed a market failure in many places. The answer is to create direct competition in the form of municipal fiber, not to cheer on weasely half-baked approaches that just solidify the positions of the monopolist dinosaurs.
braiamp 2y ago
Private companies looking for profit and leaving when they notice that is not profitable is not a undesired thing. If your margins depend on you screwing your customers, your business model shouldn't exist. California will figure something out, maybe making high density residences easier to build, would make a difference. Also, that's not exactly why they are leaving, they are leaving because the state forces them to pay the insurance if an "act of god" (systemic risk, like a wildfire) happens.
- daedrdev 2y ago
  The risk of fire has clearly massively increased thanks to climate change. California's rules literally dont allow them to charge prices that account for this. California has an insurance plan of last resort that is now billions underwater, which is a clear sign of the issues at play. Its not that these insurance companies are screwing their customers; rather at the rates that California requires they charge, these houses should not exist because they are a net negative to society unless their insurance costs more. I agree on the dense housing. So many of these burns are in areas that we shouldn't have built.

fn-mote 2y ago

Call me when you have a free market economy delivering broadband. You don’t. The situations are not comparable.

mindslight 2y ago
Call me when these type of indirect unfunded mandates ever succeed at squeezing blood out of the corpo stone, or when they don't end up entrenching the existing corpos. Broadband is indeed a market failure in many places. The answer is to create direct competition in the form of municipal fiber, not to cheer on weasely half-baked approaches that just solidify the positions of the monopolist dinosaurs.

braiamp 2y ago

Private companies looking for profit and leaving when they notice that is not profitable is not a undesired thing. If your margins depend on you screwing your customers, your business model shouldn't exist. California will figure something out, maybe making high density residences easier to build, would make a difference. Also, that's not exactly why they are leaving, they are leaving because the state forces them to pay the insurance if an "act of god" (systemic risk, like a wildfire) happens.

daedrdev 2y ago
The risk of fire has clearly massively increased thanks to climate change. California's rules literally dont allow them to charge prices that account for this. California has an insurance plan of last resort that is now billions underwater, which is a clear sign of the issues at play. Its not that these insurance companies are screwing their customers; rather at the rates that California requires they charge, these houses should not exist because they are a net negative to society unless their insurance costs more. I agree on the dense housing. So many of these burns are in areas that we shouldn't have built.