Ron Paul, the Hamilcar of Presidential Candidates

[mongers]

America should get rid of it's nuclear deterrent, it would be far more efficient if everyone was obliged to take out an insurance policy against nuclear blackmail or WW3.   

[Razgovory]

Uh, they are the ones who decide who gets what money.  They aren't just flying overhead dropping hundred dollar bills.  They have requirements on who can get what money (or food or water, or labor or whatever) and how.  That's regulation of the resource.

If I were to say that everyone who's last name begins with the letters A-M can pasture as many sheep as they want on the commons, that would be regulation too.  But it wouldn't avoid the tragedy of the commons.

Yes, that is true.  It assumed that regulations enacted are pertinent to the subject or attempt to address the problem.  I kinda thought that would have been obvious to you.


Is this some kind of trick?

[Iormlund]

Because major disasters don't happen too often, so there is not enough data.  Because we still can't predict the occurance of earthquakes.  Because if it works, commercial insurance companies would have done it.

Why do you think there is enough data?

Mono, those estimations are not only possible, but already done. That's how regulators decide, for example, how big an earthquake a new nuclear power station or dam has to be able to withstand.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, that is true.  It assumed that regulations enacted are pertinent to the subject or attempt to address the problem.  I kinda thought that would have been obvious to you.


Is this some kind of trick?

Regulation of the commons attempt to align the individual's interests with the interests of the group.  Handing out money to people who have lost property because of natural disaster doesn't do that.  It disincentivizes people from hedging their own risks, as Marty pointed out on page one.

[Monoriu]

Because major disasters don't happen too often, so there is not enough data.  Because we still can't predict the occurance of earthquakes.  Because if it works, commercial insurance companies would have done it.

Why do you think there is enough data?

Mono, those estimations are not only possible, but already done. That's how regulators decide, for example, how big an earthquake a new nuclear power station or dam has to be able to withstand.

And Fukushima must be a shining example of the accuracy of those estimations, I assume?

[Razgovory]

Yes, that is true.  It assumed that regulations enacted are pertinent to the subject or attempt to address the problem.  I kinda thought that would have been obvious to you.


Is this some kind of trick?

Regulation of the commons attempt to align the individual's interests with the interests of the group.  Handing out money to people who have lost property because of natural disaster doesn't do that.  It disincentivizes people from hedging their own risks, as Marty pointed out on page one.

Having lots of homeless people isn't in the disinterest of the group?  I strongly suspect that people have a disincentive to not have their home destroyed by Tornadoes even with FEMA.  I really don't think of living in Ohio as reckless risk taking.

[Iormlund]

And Fukushima must be a shining example of the accuracy of those estimations, I assume?

No building is suppossed to withstand every event. That's impossible. IIRC critical sites here have to survive the biggest quake in the region in the last X hundred years.

In any case, AFAIK in Fukushima the builders failed to notice that a big enough tsunami could take out every redundant system at the same time. It was a design failure.

[Monoriu]

And Fukushima must be a shining example of the accuracy of those estimations, I assume?

No building is suppossed to withstand every event. That's impossible. IIRC critical sites here have to survive the biggest quake in the region in the last X hundred years.

In any case, AFAIK in Fukushima the builders failed to notice that a big enough tsunami could take out every redundant system at the same time. It was a design failure.

Exactly.  Design failures are possible because the designers failed to calculate the risks accurately. 

[Malthus]

but a choice to live in a flood area or a tornado country usually means you are able to get your property cheaper than in a safer place

I agree with most of what you've said but just FYI most of the United States would qualify as "tornado country", so you can't possibly expect people to avoid living in places where tornadoes can strike.  Your reasoning is a lot more apt when applied to people insisting on living in flood plains or on a coastal barrier island in the southern US (where hurricanes strike frequently).  But I believe every state east of the Rockies is prone to tornadoes, and I think they've even happened in California.

Assuming this is true, wouldn't "mandatory tornado insurance" look a lot like "property tax"? 

[Iormlund]

Exactly.  Design failures are possible because the designers failed to calculate the risks accurately.

Yeah, and it's happened once in half a century. That's not exactly a bad run.

[Monoriu]

Exactly.  Design failures are possible because the designers failed to calculate the risks accurately.

Yeah, and it's happened once in half a century. That's not exactly a bad run.

What about the financial crisis of 2008?  The financial people failed to calculate the risks of a collaspe in the US housing market.  What about Greece?  The creditors failed to put the right price on their bonds.  The list goes on.  People miscalculate risks all the time. 

[PDH]

Assuming this is true, wouldn't "mandatory tornado insurance" look a lot like "property tax"? 

Yes, but the sweet, sweet money stays away from the damn government.

[Admiral Yi]

Having lots of homeless people isn't in the disinterest of the group?  I strongly suspect that people have a disincentive to not have their home destroyed by Tornadoes even with FEMA.  I really don't think of living in Ohio as reckless risk taking.

The disincentive is in buying insurance.

[CountDeMoney]

And Fukushima must be a shining example of the accuracy of those estimations, I assume?

No building is suppossed to withstand every event. That's impossible. IIRC critical sites here have to survive the biggest quake in the region in the last X hundred years.

In any case, AFAIK in Fukushima the builders failed to notice that a big enough tsunami could take out every redundant system at the same time. It was a design failure.

Exactly.  Design failures are possible because the designers failed to calculate the risks accurately.

You can't out-engineer Mother Nature, goof.

[Malthus]

Assuming this is true, wouldn't "mandatory tornado insurance" look a lot like "property tax"? 

Yes, but the sweet, sweet money stays away from the damn government.

Well, yes and no, because replacing government programs with mandatory contracts requires someone to establish standards and enforce the contracts ... of course, while some of that sweet, sweet money goes to governments in the form of judges, baliffs, regulators and the like, more of it is going to lawyers.

So there *is* an upside to the plan.