It's actually not a wrong premise.

Insurance companies can somehow do exactly what you're saying we can't do, in that they refuse to insure these areas.

all i read was im a lefty and since protesting is kind of cool right now that's what I'll do.

We should educate Texas about climate change instead of giving them money, or they will just continue to pollute and make it worse.

insurance companies have nothing to do with your wrong premise of equating bad luck with bad decision-making.

on top of that, insurance companies are not refusing to insure these areas as you claim, they just charge high for it:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2017/08/30/lessons-from-hurricane-harvey-federal-flood-insurance-is-the-problem-not-the-solution/#2b50a44b5013





only in the most extreme cases is insurance completely unavailable.


that forbes article is a good read in general, really recommended. it uses your arguments and applies them where they fit: federal involvement in flood insurance and the bad incentives it creates.

note, however, that this is a different issue from what you were talkiing about in your opening post. federal payments for the rebuilding phase are a completely different story from private charity for dealing with the immediate aftermath of the storm. such private charity for persons who have lost everything and are in a desperate situation is a noble thing, but it certainly wont come close to covering all the losses these people have sustained. therefore, such charity for short-term relief wont significantly skew the long-term risk-cost-analysis or create wrong incentives.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 6 2017 04:06pm

while desperately trying to find cases where his exact wording does not apply, you're completely ignoring the point behind it: the issue here is that it's NOT just "bad luck" as you claim, but a well known fact these areas are disaster prone, THAT'S why insurance is unavailable / more expensive, not because they placed a random bet that an incident that could impact their bottom line would happen there by chance...

This post was edited by fender on Sep 6 2017 04:32pm

once again, so that even you can understand my point: yes, houston is more prone to flooding or storm damage than, say, new jersey. but the same is true for corpus christi, for new orleans, for pensacola, tampa, miami, and so on. a strip that reaches something like 200 miles inland and stretches along the entire gulf cost and southern atlantic coast of the united states is at risk of wind damage and flooding caused by hurricanes. thats why insurance against those types of damage is higher in this area than elsewhere. but unless we completely give up settling in this entire region, people will live and move and build there.

does this mean taking an increased risk compared to settling in the midwest? yes. is it justified if those people in the gulf region pay higher flood insurance premiums? yes. should government provide subsidies for flood insurance to those regions? no. but it is not a generally "bad decision" to move to the gulf region, it is not a bad decision to build a house there. yes, the gulf region has an increased risk for one type of natural disaster. but the same can be said about pretty much every region of the US. wildfires in the west and the rockies, heatwaves and earthquakes in california, tornados in the plains, blizzards in the north. an increased risk for one type of natural disaster doesnt mean that we should give up an entire region, it doesnt make living or even moving there a bad decision.

also note that most parts of the gulf coast did not get hit by the landfall of a major hurricane for decades, many have no such event on record at all. which places within the "risk zone" get hit by such a disaster is completely up to (bad) luck and has nothing to do with houstonians having done something specifically wrong.

hence, denying those unlucky people short-term relief in the form of donations and charity, as suggested by thor in his opening post, is NOT justified by some crude caricature of libertarian arguments.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 6 2017 04:56pm

The market isn't charitable - never has been, never will be.

But people can be charitable with their disposable income, if they desire. They are free to do that, no?

So if they can't afford the insurance rates we shouldn't subsidize their poor economic decision.

Case closed.



They are free to do it, even though they shouldn't. And we should use social pressure to prevent them from doing it.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 6 2017 04:56pm

are you seriously too retarded to see the difference between "long-term rebuilding" and "short-term relief"?

yes, we shouldnt subsidize increased risks.
no, charity and donations are not "subsidies".
and no, higher insurance rates against one type of natural disaster are not indicative of an overall-risk-level which exceeds that of other regions of the country. living or building in the gulf region is not inherently a "poor economic decision".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 6 2017 05:04pm

Something definitely has to be done about the flood insurance. Most flood insurance subsidies in this country go to the wealthy who choose to live close to, or on, the water. People who build extravagant homes and could certainly afford to pay market price for insurance of their mansions.




I don't pretend to know what other people should do, I let them decide for themselves. Never been a big fan of social pressure either, but whatever floats your boat I guess.