Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

▲

Panzer04 a day ago

What are you trying to say here?

▲

kstenerud a day ago | parent [-]

I'm saying that running a government is a lot like running a ship:

You can't just let the currents and tidal forces ("the invisible hand") run the show unconditionally because even though they can propel you great distances at very low cost, they'll eventually throw you upon the reefs.

And you can't just let the rowers and tillers (legislators & executive) run the show unconditionally because they'll end up exhausting themselves with little to show for it as they fight against the winds and currents when they should cooperate.

It's a balancing act that requires some science, some experience, some luck, and a steady hand - and a capable and honorable captain and crew who believe in the mission.

▲

Panzer04 a day ago | parent | next [-]

I still don't follow.

If I'm reading it right, and the prior context, we shouldn't allow private insurers to charge the prices they want for insurance?

What do you want us to do? Ultimately someone has to pay for the bad outcomes happening here - either that's homeowners in risky areas, insurance shareholders or the general taxpayer, depending on where you fall.

If you don't make the ultimate originators of the risk pay for it (people in risky areas) they won't stop doing the stupid thing and others will bear the cost. Arguably that is the greatest strength of the "free market" - directing the efforts of everyone in the same, positive, direction.

▲

kstenerud a day ago | parent [-]

Because although in the recent LA case we're dealing with rich folks who could shoulder the increased burden, often it's the poor areas that are riskier, and where the people there have little choice over where they can live.

There's no universal solution. A "free market" approach will work in some areas, and fail spectacularly in others. Same goes for a full-on centralized control approach.

And in all cases, you also have the confounding factor of bad actors gaming the system - and your current tools may be insufficient to meet the challenge.

So you need a human guiding hand to make sure things don't go too far out of whack.

This isn't an either-or decision. Stability doesn't care about whose motives or approaches are more "pure".

	▲	Panzer04 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Agree to disagree. The "human hand" guiding outcomes still needs to get it's resources from somewhere, presumably from government tax income. I disagree this will necessarily result in better global outcomes than the free market. In cases where almost everyone agrees people should always have access to a service (healthcare) I think it does make sense to obligate everyone to pay. I don't think it makes sense in this specific case of wildfire insurance. The free market here seems to be failing by your definition because it can't make money. To me that's it succeeding. It's demonstrating that it's underpriced, and people being unwilling to pay the necessary prices shows that they need to find somewhere else to live. Amusingly enough, the lack of housing itself is another problem caused mostly by human-guided hands in government, not the free market. Enlightened despotism always sounds great when they agree with your perspectives, the reality is rarely so smooth.

▲

eric-hu 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Where do we find an honorable captain in this day and age? And how do we get them into the captain's seat?