tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post114079363839909658..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: The Case for Dissolving FEMAHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140812717270837152006-02-24T15:25:00.000-05:002006-02-24T15:25:00.000-05:00There is simply no system consistently worse for a...<I>There is simply no system consistently worse for avoiding risks than capitalism.</I><BR/><BR/>If that's true, it's only because there is no other system that comes close to providing the rewards/incentives that are available in capitalism.<BR/><BR/>[Growth is the key to risk management. You're either growing or you're dying - and systems that don't provide for growth are far less secure (and generally worse off) in the long run than ours.]Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140808245319715502006-02-24T14:10:00.000-05:002006-02-24T14:10:00.000-05:00Never happen. The insurance company that did that ...<I>Never happen. The insurance company that did that would simply be undercut by their competitors who would offer the same indurance for less.</I><BR/><BR/>It happens all the time. Insurance companies are exiting all kinds of markets now that they have to make earnings from underwriting (as opposed to investments).<BR/><BR/>You're assuming that every insurance company is one giant bankruptcy waiting to happen. But that's not really the case. The two things that everyone in business is freaking out about right now are both insurance related (health & property/casualty).<BR/><BR/>Where do you think Warren gets the money to buy all those Dilly Bars?Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140806991008434542006-02-24T13:49:00.000-05:002006-02-24T13:49:00.000-05:00It might not be as bad if developers made the buil...<I>It might not be as bad if developers made the buildings here more earthquake proof. But they have no incentive to since it costs more. The only way you could possibly get it to happen would be with, you guessed it, strict governmental regulation of the construction industry.</I><BR/><BR/>Or if insurance companies charged accordingly.<BR/><BR/>You want to build what kind of building? OK, fine. You gotta pay the premium premium.<BR/><BR/>Which brings us back to the original topic of FEMA. Since the whole thing is basically one giant insurance policy, I suggest we put Warren Buffet in charge of the whole thing.<BR/><BR/>If he screws it up, we all get free Dairy Queen Blizzards for a year.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140806112691342812006-02-24T13:35:00.000-05:002006-02-24T13:35:00.000-05:00Or are we going to see some of that vaunted charit...<I>Or are we going to see some of that vaunted charity your faith calls for?</I><BR/><BR/>C'mon Tlaloc...how do you expect to have a reasonable discussion when you write stuff like that? Or this...<BR/><BR/><I>capitalism is the most blind system for risk avoidance.</I>Barry Vanhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04006891046091646808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140802202701809472006-02-24T12:30:00.000-05:002006-02-24T12:30:00.000-05:00Thank you for this clear and concise argument. You...Thank you for this clear and concise argument. You make your case quite forcefully. The only flaw I can find is only a flaw (to me) because it approaches the matter from a basic premise that is rooted, at heart, in governmental ideology: You presuppose that federal-level action is, by default, ponderous and inefficient. I did find your post largely persuasive once I reminded myself of some interesting political science research: The most effective democracies are those that disburse resources at a regional level.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140800203135388002006-02-24T11:56:00.000-05:002006-02-24T11:56:00.000-05:00CLA, re your point one, the feds should stop both ...CLA, re your point one, the feds should stop both simultaneously. Anybody who built in anticipation of being bailed out by the federal government if a disaster hit deserves whatever comes.<BR/><BR/>Re your point two, yes, and very well put! If that's what the Bush admin really wants, I'm for it--as long as they dissolve all the other stuff. Which of course is not going to happen.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140798843960080412006-02-24T11:34:00.000-05:002006-02-24T11:34:00.000-05:00While I agree in principle, I think the real issue...While I agree in principle, I think the real issue was hit on in Hunter's post.<BR/><BR/>The Federal government has some responsibility (I said *some*) if and when they are responsible for irresponsible development (ie, subsidizing housing built below sea level, on a cliff, etc...).<BR/><BR/>Before fed intervention can be dissolved, the fed needs to stop encouraging (subsidizing) development that would not occur without their "help."<BR/><BR/>On another note...<BR/><BR/>To distill what Team Bush wants: if the disaster is really bad we'll send the army.<BR/><BR/>This ought to be the extent of fed involvement (ideally), because if it ain't bad enough to have to send in the troops, the local governments ought to be able to handle it.Barry Vanhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04006891046091646808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140797036735423572006-02-24T11:03:00.000-05:002006-02-24T11:03:00.000-05:00Exactly, Hunter. Your last sentence encapsulates t...Exactly, Hunter. Your last sentence encapsulates the moral hazard of these bailouts.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140794307980997032006-02-24T10:18:00.000-05:002006-02-24T10:18:00.000-05:00Amen, baby. The genius of federalism continues to...Amen, baby. The genius of federalism continues to go essentially ignored. Gulf states should invest and prepare for hurricanes. It makes no sense whatsoever for the rest of the country to subsidize them in that respect. If it then becomes economically unfeasible to build or develop certain coastal areas because they cannot be adequately insured against loss or architecturally protected, then let the circumstances dictate the correct actions to take.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.com