4 ms·

Yeah, I'm surprised that the damages of the LA fire occurred, because it was known beforehand that California had a fire problem (and also have an earthquake pr

Yeah, I'm surprised that the damages of the LA fire occurred, because it was known beforehand that California had a fire problem (and also have an earthquake problem I think). I'm here in Eastern Europe and our buildings can withstand a lot of things. > we need to take action to mitigate their impact in the future. As a foreigner, it seems to me that Americans prioritize building cheap homes over constructing better and more resilient ones. As an European, it baffles me as well. If this doesn't happen to "cheap" homes here, why does it happen in California, to rich people's houses?

nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
The government banned insurance companies from raising prices. They used tax payer money to subsidize this for a while which increase home prices. Eventually insurance companies stopped offering insurance. When state actors even dabble in socialism disasters happen people die.
- areoform 2y ago
  > Gov. Gavin Newsom just released part of his solution to California’s home insurance crisis, and it boils down to a push to allow carriers to move faster to raise rates. > In most cases, the Department of Insurance would be required to act on an insurance carrier’s rate request within 60 days, unless extensions are necessary. > The proposed bill expedites the timelines laid out in Proposition 103, which requires insurance companies to have changes approved by the Department of Insurance and dictates how quickly the department must act on change requests. > Critics fear that shortening approval timelines will allow insurance companies to jack-up premiums without room for public appeals and sufficient review by the Department of Insurance. https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/30/california-insurance-crisis-new-newsom-trailer-bill/ https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/30/california-insurance-crisi...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- fishstock25 2y ago
  > The government banned insurance companies from raising prices. They used tax payer money to subsidize this for a while which increase home prices. Eventually insurance companies stopped offering insurance. Obviously. Such a move by the government is just plain stupid. > When state actors even dabble in socialism disasters happen people die. No need to overgeneralize. Not every stupid move is immediately "socialism" and everything smart is "capitalism". It's obvious to every socialist that this move was stupid. In contrast, it's pretty clear that a purely market-based health system costs lives. Nobody is claiming though that "whenever societies dabble in capitalism it results in deaths". Pick your optimization target and then the right tool to reach that target. Sometimes that tool is to let prices regulate risk, sometimes it is laws to regulate risk, and sometimes it's something else entirely.
  - Ray20 2y ago
    > it's pretty clear that a purely market-based health system costs lives. That was literally the take about insurance. And here we are, again.
  - BoxFour 2y ago
    > It's obvious to every socialist that this move was stupid Is it? Or is this post hoc rationalization? I really dislike playing the “both sides” card, even for a moment, but it’s hard to deny that there are questionable takes on both ends. I agree with you that not every regulation equates to socialism, and it’s ridiculous to claim it is. However, the narrative of “insurance companies bad” is incredibly prevalent among left-leaning perspectives, and any regulation around insurance premiums tends to be automatically celebrated as a clear victory. Ironically (because it's a free market argument), it’s a not-uncommon argument that if insurance companies can’t provide their services for no more than some arbitrarily-decided amount annually, they’re being inefficient or greedy and should go bankrupt and let a new competitor take the market.
    - fishstock25 2y ago
      > the narrative of “insurance companies bad” is incredibly prevalent among left-leaning perspectives, Perhaps it is, I don't have enough insight to know. It's obvious (to me) that this is clearly over-simplifying things. > Ironically (because it's a free market argument), it’s a not-uncommon argument that if insurance companies can’t provide their services for no more than some arbitrarily-decided amount annually, they’re being inefficient or greedy and should go bankrupt and let a new competitor take the market. Is it actually a free market argument? Maybe it's not possible to provide that service at that price point. I'd think that the free market argument is that the price is already as low as possible, otherwise such a competitor would already exist and have outcompeted everybody. Such an argument has other issues though, like inertia, scaling effects, price-fixing and such, all of which are working against a free market though. Which is why a truly free market needs regulation, otherwise it ceases to be free. > I really dislike playing the “both sides” card, even for a moment Honest question: Why? I've found that reality is complicated. It's rare to find saints on "one side" and "pure evil" on the other. The truth is often times that there are many issues, many interests, many world views, and typically even more than two sides. Uncovering the truth usually requires avoiding partisanship and have an open mind about understanding the interests of every involved party. That necessarily leads to "both sides" arguments. Not common in hyper-polarized discourses, unfortunately.
- frankvdwaal 2y ago
  Ah yes. Socialism is when intervention and subsidies.
  - tormeh 2y ago
    Pretty much, yeah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
wakawaka28 2y ago
The fire problem can be managed by burning or removing some of the dead wood, and building adequate water storage. Apparently California has been neglecting those two problems for decades.
- lionkor 2y ago
  It could also be helped by not building houses out of cardboard. The amount of walls in Europe that you could punch a wall into is low enough that you shouldnt try.
  - robocat 2y ago
    And give many of Europe's house's a small rattle and they would fall down. I'm in Christchurch, 6.2 Earthquake in 2011 and wooden framed houses dealt with it pretty good - they flex - lots of the houses survived and are still used. Just about anything old and bricky was a deathtrap (fortunately many were unoccupied because condemned after nearby 2010 Earthquake).
    - lionkor 2y ago
      > And give many of Europe's house's a small rattle and they would fall down. In areas where we don't have earthquakes, yeah, what's the problem?
      - overflow897 2y ago
        I think the problem is suggest that an earthquake zone's fire problems would be solved by building houses like they do in a non-earthquake zone
    - fakedang 2y ago
      And considering most of Europe is basically low risk territory, it makes sense? Afaik, only Turkey and a small part of the Balkans is considered earthquake territory. And there's no fracking in Europe to induce minor manmade earthquakes either.
yieldcrv 2y ago
All the properties that survived in those LA neighborhoods all had some pretty basic and intentional fire resistance I’m curious about how many others did that burned down too But so far the ones highlighted had super obvious mitigations that its astounding to see were not more common
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

nobodywillobsrv 2y ago

The government banned insurance companies from raising prices. They used tax payer money to subsidize this for a while which increase home prices. Eventually insurance companies stopped offering insurance. When state actors even dabble in socialism disasters happen people die.

areoform 2y ago
> Gov. Gavin Newsom just released part of his solution to California’s home insurance crisis, and it boils down to a push to allow carriers to move faster to raise rates. > In most cases, the Department of Insurance would be required to act on an insurance carrier’s rate request within 60 days, unless extensions are necessary. > The proposed bill expedites the timelines laid out in Proposition 103, which requires insurance companies to have changes approved by the Department of Insurance and dictates how quickly the department must act on change requests. > Critics fear that shortening approval timelines will allow insurance companies to jack-up premiums without room for public appeals and sufficient review by the Department of Insurance. https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/30/california-insurance-crisis-new-newsom-trailer-bill/ https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/30/california-insurance-crisi...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
fishstock25 2y ago
> The government banned insurance companies from raising prices. They used tax payer money to subsidize this for a while which increase home prices. Eventually insurance companies stopped offering insurance. Obviously. Such a move by the government is just plain stupid. > When state actors even dabble in socialism disasters happen people die. No need to overgeneralize. Not every stupid move is immediately "socialism" and everything smart is "capitalism". It's obvious to every socialist that this move was stupid. In contrast, it's pretty clear that a purely market-based health system costs lives. Nobody is claiming though that "whenever societies dabble in capitalism it results in deaths". Pick your optimization target and then the right tool to reach that target. Sometimes that tool is to let prices regulate risk, sometimes it is laws to regulate risk, and sometimes it's something else entirely.
- Ray20 2y ago
  > it's pretty clear that a purely market-based health system costs lives. That was literally the take about insurance. And here we are, again.
- BoxFour 2y ago
  > It's obvious to every socialist that this move was stupid Is it? Or is this post hoc rationalization? I really dislike playing the “both sides” card, even for a moment, but it’s hard to deny that there are questionable takes on both ends. I agree with you that not every regulation equates to socialism, and it’s ridiculous to claim it is. However, the narrative of “insurance companies bad” is incredibly prevalent among left-leaning perspectives, and any regulation around insurance premiums tends to be automatically celebrated as a clear victory. Ironically (because it's a free market argument), it’s a not-uncommon argument that if insurance companies can’t provide their services for no more than some arbitrarily-decided amount annually, they’re being inefficient or greedy and should go bankrupt and let a new competitor take the market.
  - fishstock25 2y ago
    > the narrative of “insurance companies bad” is incredibly prevalent among left-leaning perspectives, Perhaps it is, I don't have enough insight to know. It's obvious (to me) that this is clearly over-simplifying things. > Ironically (because it's a free market argument), it’s a not-uncommon argument that if insurance companies can’t provide their services for no more than some arbitrarily-decided amount annually, they’re being inefficient or greedy and should go bankrupt and let a new competitor take the market. Is it actually a free market argument? Maybe it's not possible to provide that service at that price point. I'd think that the free market argument is that the price is already as low as possible, otherwise such a competitor would already exist and have outcompeted everybody. Such an argument has other issues though, like inertia, scaling effects, price-fixing and such, all of which are working against a free market though. Which is why a truly free market needs regulation, otherwise it ceases to be free. > I really dislike playing the “both sides” card, even for a moment Honest question: Why? I've found that reality is complicated. It's rare to find saints on "one side" and "pure evil" on the other. The truth is often times that there are many issues, many interests, many world views, and typically even more than two sides. Uncovering the truth usually requires avoiding partisanship and have an open mind about understanding the interests of every involved party. That necessarily leads to "both sides" arguments. Not common in hyper-polarized discourses, unfortunately.
frankvdwaal 2y ago
Ah yes. Socialism is when intervention and subsidies.
- tormeh 2y ago
  Pretty much, yeah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

wakawaka28 2y ago

The fire problem can be managed by burning or removing some of the dead wood, and building adequate water storage. Apparently California has been neglecting those two problems for decades.

lionkor 2y ago
It could also be helped by not building houses out of cardboard. The amount of walls in Europe that you could punch a wall into is low enough that you shouldnt try.
- robocat 2y ago
  And give many of Europe's house's a small rattle and they would fall down. I'm in Christchurch, 6.2 Earthquake in 2011 and wooden framed houses dealt with it pretty good - they flex - lots of the houses survived and are still used. Just about anything old and bricky was a deathtrap (fortunately many were unoccupied because condemned after nearby 2010 Earthquake).
  - lionkor 2y ago
    > And give many of Europe's house's a small rattle and they would fall down. In areas where we don't have earthquakes, yeah, what's the problem?
    - overflow897 2y ago
      I think the problem is suggest that an earthquake zone's fire problems would be solved by building houses like they do in a non-earthquake zone
  - fakedang 2y ago
    And considering most of Europe is basically low risk territory, it makes sense? Afaik, only Turkey and a small part of the Balkans is considered earthquake territory. And there's no fracking in Europe to induce minor manmade earthquakes either.

yieldcrv 2y ago

All the properties that survived in those LA neighborhoods all had some pretty basic and intentional fire resistance I’m curious about how many others did that burned down too But so far the ones highlighted had super obvious mitigations that its astounding to see were not more common

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]