2 ms·

It seems like we're just arguing semantics at this point. And no, we don't have to evacuate the entire west because of fire risk, we just have to change incenti

It seems like we're just arguing semantics at this point. And no, we don't have to evacuate the entire west because of fire risk, we just have to change incentives so fewer people move to the very hazardous parts.

sanderjd 2y ago
It's not semantics! This is the refuge of everyone who says something is what it's not (or isn't what it is). "Well sure, yeah, I guess if you use words to mean the things that those words mean, then you have a point!" You can just say that the public subsidy for insurance distorted the market in problematic ways. I totally agree with that. I don't understand why you got attached to saying that it isn't a subsidy. But no, it's not as simple as "change the incentives so fewer people move to the very hazardous parts". This already is, and is only going to become more so, an existential problem for insurers, throughout very large swaths of the west. The recent LA fires weren't in any particularly hazardous place. The hazard levels are higher than people can bear in more places than policymakers can bear to let private insurance markets sort it out. It's a real and giant problem. Just trying to hand wave it away with "foolish policymakers just didn't do the obvious thing" is convenient, but unhelpful.
- Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
  If you really to keep arguing this... California's FAIR plan is not a subsidy because it is not trying to lower the price of a good or service. It is rather a safety net program for those who cannot access private insurance (another policy failure caused by price controls). It's really as simple as that and I don't see why you're having so much trouble understanding it. >This already is, and is only going to become more so, an existential problem for insurers, throughout very large swaths of the west. Other western states are doing fine, probably because they do more controlled burns, so seasonal fires don't become conflagrations. That, as well as an insurance market where the state doesn't suppress price signals makes fires a non-issue for 99% of people. Also, since more and more people are living in urban areas I would expect fewer fatalities in the future, not more.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    I'm not "having so much trouble understanding it", it's just that publicly subsidized insurance is ... subsidized. It's not a complicated or "semantic" question. You've created this other definition of what "subsidy" is, which just isn't what it is. If the government subsidizes something, it's a subsidy. I don't get why you're so attached to doing contortions to deny that. It kind of seems like you think subsidies are good things, but that this subsidized insurance is bad, so thus it can't be a subsidy. But it's easy to square this circle: sometimes subsidies are good but often they aren't. To your last paragraph, I think you just aren't aware how much other states are also struggling with this problem. You seem to live in California, so it's understandable to be most aware of what's going on in your own state.

sanderjd 2y ago

It's not semantics! This is the refuge of everyone who says something is what it's not (or isn't what it is). "Well sure, yeah, I guess if you use words to mean the things that those words mean, then you have a point!" You can just say that the public subsidy for insurance distorted the market in problematic ways. I totally agree with that. I don't understand why you got attached to saying that it isn't a subsidy. But no, it's not as simple as "change the incentives so fewer people move to the very hazardous parts". This already is, and is only going to become more so, an existential problem for insurers, throughout very large swaths of the west. The recent LA fires weren't in any particularly hazardous place. The hazard levels are higher than people can bear in more places than policymakers can bear to let private insurance markets sort it out. It's a real and giant problem. Just trying to hand wave it away with "foolish policymakers just didn't do the obvious thing" is convenient, but unhelpful.

Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
If you really to keep arguing this... California's FAIR plan is not a subsidy because it is not trying to lower the price of a good or service. It is rather a safety net program for those who cannot access private insurance (another policy failure caused by price controls). It's really as simple as that and I don't see why you're having so much trouble understanding it. >This already is, and is only going to become more so, an existential problem for insurers, throughout very large swaths of the west. Other western states are doing fine, probably because they do more controlled burns, so seasonal fires don't become conflagrations. That, as well as an insurance market where the state doesn't suppress price signals makes fires a non-issue for 99% of people. Also, since more and more people are living in urban areas I would expect fewer fatalities in the future, not more.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  I'm not "having so much trouble understanding it", it's just that publicly subsidized insurance is ... subsidized. It's not a complicated or "semantic" question. You've created this other definition of what "subsidy" is, which just isn't what it is. If the government subsidizes something, it's a subsidy. I don't get why you're so attached to doing contortions to deny that. It kind of seems like you think subsidies are good things, but that this subsidized insurance is bad, so thus it can't be a subsidy. But it's easy to square this circle: sometimes subsidies are good but often they aren't. To your last paragraph, I think you just aren't aware how much other states are also struggling with this problem. You seem to live in California, so it's understandable to be most aware of what's going on in your own state.