Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Not News: Bootstrappy libertarian John Stossel blasts the government for providing flood insurance. News: He is collecting a flood insurance check. Facepalm: For the third time   (thinkprogress.org ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, John Stossel, flood insurance, news, money back guarantee, National Flood Insurance Program, floods, Steve Doocy, federal government  
•       •       •

2366 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:10 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-11-01 03:58:13 PM  

skullkrusher: it is like Warren Buffett in that regard. Stossel thinks it is unfair that others be burdened with his federally subsidized insurance yet he continues to take advantage of it. WB thinks it is unfair he pays less in taxes than his secretary yet continues to do so. Stossel refusing to take such coverage or Buffett willingly paying more would speak to their principles but neither would make a dent in the notion they claim to support (or oppose)


False equivalency. Stossel does not have the legal right to do what he thinks is fair (not carry the insurance). Nothing stops Buffett from paying whatever he thinks is fair, so long as it's equal to or greater than the amount he's legally required to pay.

Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want. Making a claim on that is no more inappropriate than taking advantage of Medicare when you qualify - you've "paid for" it, you might as well get some benefit from that. And actually, the flood insurance example is even more compelling - if he's like me, Stossel paid market rates for his insurance, so his claims aren't directly subsidized by general revenue the way, e.g., Medicare claims are (that is, people don't actually "pay for" Medicare through payroll taxes, but people DO pay for their flood insurance).
 
2012-11-01 03:58:22 PM  
The Dooce went off script!
 
2012-11-01 03:58:56 PM  

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses


We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.
 
2012-11-01 03:59:27 PM  

fiver5: Stossel has been on record about this for decades... I remember in the 1990's watching him on 20/20 standing in front of his beach house and thanking America for paying to rebuild it....

Calling him a hypocrite is missing the much larger point. But I guess that's about what I've come to expect.


Exactly. I cannot stand our tax code, but yet I claim my interest deduction every year. It doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite.

Actually, this is the opposite - he is quite open about this and has been all along.
 
2012-11-01 04:01:09 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.


We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean
 
2012-11-01 04:02:31 PM  

Garet Garrett: skullkrusher: it is like Warren Buffett in that regard. Stossel thinks it is unfair that others be burdened with his federally subsidized insurance yet he continues to take advantage of it. WB thinks it is unfair he pays less in taxes than his secretary yet continues to do so. Stossel refusing to take such coverage or Buffett willingly paying more would speak to their principles but neither would make a dent in the notion they claim to support (or oppose)

False equivalency. Stossel does not have the legal right to do what he thinks is fair (not carry the insurance). Nothing stops Buffett from paying whatever he thinks is fair, so long as it's equal to or greater than the amount he's legally required to pay.

Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want. Making a claim on that is no more inappropriate than taking advantage of Medicare when you qualify - you've "paid for" it, you might as well get some benefit from that. And actually, the flood insurance example is even more compelling - if he's like me, Stossel paid market rates for his insurance, so his claims aren't directly subsidized by general revenue the way, e.g., Medicare claims are (that is, people don't actually "pay for" Medicare through payroll taxes, but people DO pay for their flood insurance).


Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy flood insurance he should not purchase property in a flood zone.
 
2012-11-01 04:03:07 PM  

skullkrusher: We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.


I don't give a flying fark where you think you "need" me to live.  I don't live to fill your needs.

Signed,

Everyone
 
2012-11-01 04:03:25 PM  

skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean


You live in Manhattan don't you?
 
2012-11-01 04:03:37 PM  

Garet Garrett: Cyberluddite: Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

Spoken like someone who doesn't have flood insurance, or, in the inestimable words of someone whose shoes I am surely not worthy to spitshine, an ignorant twatwaffle. The government doesn't write flood insurance policies. It simply mandates that people purchase such policies. My flood carrier, I assure you, would not be mistaken for the government.


You are wrong. The NFIP is underwritten by the government. They do not sell or market it--it is sold by private insurance companies as the agent of the NFIP, but the insurance company does not bear any of the risk. They take the premium you pay, and forward on to FEMA, which is the entity that underwrites the policy and pays the claims. Your insurance company simply services the policy, but is not the risk bearer. To say that your insurance company is the one who is the carrier is like saying that your insurance agent is the guy who writes your homeowner's policy.

The government also does not mandate that anybody purchases policies, except to the extent that you're confusing Fannie Mae with the government, which will not back a mortgage on a flood-prone property if there's no flood insurance in place.

Trust me on this.
 
2012-11-01 04:04:32 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy flood insurance he should not purchase property in a flood zone.


That's one of the most tendentious arguments I've seen from you, and you're not afraid to be tendentious.
 
2012-11-01 04:05:41 PM  

Garet Garrett: Stossel does not have the legal right to do what he thinks is fair (not carry the insurance).


Is Stossel's house in a high risk flood zone?
 
2012-11-01 04:06:29 PM  

Garet Garrett: Signed,

Everyone


I don't give a flying fark about your "message". I don't live to be used as an example by you.

Signed,

Me
 
2012-11-01 04:06:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

You live in Manhattan don't you?


so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country
 
2012-11-01 04:07:22 PM  

Bloody William: TheMysticS: You said poop collected from a large group.

And then you said chunk.

And then everyone got farked

POOL! I MEANT POOL!


I'm so sorry. I couldn't help it.
Great typo.
 
2012-11-01 04:07:32 PM  

Garet Garrett: skullkrusher: We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

I don't give a flying fark where you think you "need" me to live.  I don't live to fill your needs.

Signed,

Everyone


yeah, that was kind of my point. We don't "need" people to leave near the ocean. I was responding to a poster who said we do.
Lern to reed

Signed,

Your mom
 
2012-11-01 04:08:12 PM  

Garet Garrett: Philip Francis Queeg: Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy flood insurance he should not purchase property in a flood zone.

That's one of the most tendentious arguments I've seen from you, and you're not afraid to be tendentious.


Good lord.

John Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy car insurance he should not buy a car.
 
2012-11-01 04:08:42 PM  

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


For the most part, you can't buy private flood insurance anywhere in the U.S.--whether it's New Orleans, Phoenix, or the top of a mountain in Colorado. The private insurance market simply isn't interested in the risk. Your private insurer will take your premium for it, but what it's really providing you with is a flood policy issued by the NFIP--you insurance company forwards all of the premium collected to the feds, and the feds are the one who are on the risk. The insurance company bears no risk of loss under NFIP policies.


Anway, catastrophe insurance works differently than regular insurance, such as fire insurance. For an insurance company that issues fire insurance, they're going to have some losses every year, but the goal is, on an average annualized basis, to take in more in premium than they pay out in losses. Their losses may vary a little from year to year, but on average they're pretty predictable (or at least they hope so--if they predict wrong, they lose money and/or eventually go out of business). With catastrophe insurance, though, it's possible that the insurer may go years and years without paying out any claims to speak of. Then--boom--one day, they have losses that are enormous--more than they have in assets, and more than the total amount they took in as premium income over the years. Were they supposed to bank every single dollar of premium they ever collected to keep it in reserve for that one year--the year that may come next year, 100 years from now, or 1000 years from now? Not a real efficient use of capital, is it?

Let's say, for example, that an insurance company wrote two policies on the same book of 1000 similar properties--a flood policy and a fire policy on each one. Let's also assume that the actuarial and loss-modeling figures say that, for each property, there's a 1-in-100 year (1.%) chance that there will be a fire that'll burn the place down in any given year, and there's also a 1-in-100 year (1%) chance that there will be a serious flood. Let's also assume the value of each property is $100K. That would mean that the raw, risk-based premium for each property (without any profit load added in), should be $1000 per year on both the fire and flood policies ($100,000 times 1%). Let's add, let's say, 10% (to use round numbers) for a profit load, and we arrive at an annual premium of $1100 for each policy. Times 1000 properties, that means the insurance company collects $1,100,000 in premium for the fire coverage, and the same amount for the flood coverage.

How does that work on the fire coverage? Well, because fires occur all the time and aren't necessarily keyed to infrequent events (like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, etc.), in an average year, 1% of the homes in that 1-in-100-year risk band will burn down. So that means that, on average, the insurer would pay 10 losses of $100K each in any given year on the fire coverage, for a total of $1,000,000. The insurer collected $1,100,000 in premium, so it's earned a profit of $100,000. If it's a private company, it can pay out that profit as dividends to its shareholders.

How does it work on the flood coverage? Well, in the average year, there will be no losses. Why? Because it's catastrophe coverage, and catastrophes don't happen often. In this case, we can expect that the insured event will happen, on average, only once every 100 years. So, statistically speaking, in 99 of the next 100 years, we can expect that the insurer's losses will be zero, but in one of those 100 years, we can expect the insurer's losses to be $100,000,000 (1000 homes at $100K each). That works out to an average annual loss over 100 years of $1,000,000 ($100 million divided by 100 years), the same as the fire coverage, but the problem is that it comes all at once, not gradually over that 100 years.

So, for example, in Year 1, there are no floods, and the insurer collected $1,100,000 and paid out nothing, for an annual underwriting profit of $1,100,000. Let's say this goes on for 10 years, and at the end of 10 years, the insurer has collected $11 million. At the end of 50 years, it's collected $55 million. It can't distribute it to its shareholders as premium, though, if it's acting responsibly. It needs to just sit on that pot of money, saving it for the one year that it has huge losses. Not a particularly efficient use of capital, is it?

And what if that big flood comes after, say, only 5 years after the insurer got into the flood insurance business? Suddenly it has to pay out $100 million in losses, for which it's collected an aggregate of only $5.5 million in premiums. Where is it supposed to get the other $94.5 million to pay those losses? This is how many insurance companies have gone tits up in the past--leaving their policyholders with no way to collect the benefits they paid premiums for.

And anyway, if the solution is just "don't build where there might be a flood," take a look at the 100-year floodplain maps sometime. A lot of the country falls into that. If nobody built a house in the 100-year floodplain, we would have to cram 300 million people into Idaho and Montana and Nevada and similar places, and leave many of our existing populated areas to rot.
 
2012-11-01 04:09:44 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

You live in Manhattan don't you?

so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country


I'm sure when you and the other 1,601,947 residents of the island are relocated further from the ocean there will be no negative economic impacts.
 
2012-11-01 04:09:57 PM  
There are times when saying "fark you asshole" in a debate is good sense.

fark you, John Stossel.
 
2012-11-01 04:10:51 PM  
Stossel is such a tool that even Fox News wont air him on a daily basis. My favorite Stossel hit was saying that private business can discriminate based on color or gender and the free market would fix it.
Go to the 3:31 mark
The guy is truly world class scum. And does not help shake the Libertarians are heartless stereotype just cements it.
 
2012-11-01 04:12:38 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

You live in Manhattan don't you?

so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country

I'm sure when you and the other 1,601,947 residents of the island are relocated further from the ocean there will be no negative economic impacts.


umm... yeah, very few of us "need" to live on the island to ensure the wealth and prosperity that access to the oceans provides. What part are you missing (unintentionally)?
 
2012-11-01 04:12:58 PM  
www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com
 
2012-11-01 04:13:24 PM  

kingoomieiii: Garet Garrett: Philip Francis Queeg: Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy flood insurance he should not purchase property in a flood zone.

That's one of the most tendentious arguments I've seen from you, and you're not afraid to be tendentious.

Good lord.

John Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy car insurance he should not buy a car.


meh - is he actually in a location that does have mandatory participation in the program?
 
2012-11-01 04:16:40 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

You live in Manhattan don't you?

so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country

I'm sure when you and the other 1,601,947 residents of the island are relocated further from the ocean there will be no negative economic impacts.

umm... yeah, very few of us "need" to live on the island to ensure the wealth and prosperity that access to the oceans provides. What part are you missing (unintentionally)?


I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.
 
2012-11-01 04:17:08 PM  

skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean


So only water front property is damaged by Hurricanes?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-01 04:17:16 PM  

Cyberluddite: The NFIP is underwritten by the government.


You're correct; I'd forgotten about that. FEMA underwrites the policies. But it doesn't write them, or price them (the more important point), if memory serves. Flood insurance rates are market based.

Cyberluddite: The government also does not mandate that anybody purchases policies


I'll disagree with you on this one. It's a Congressionally-approved requirement that any federally insured or regulated lenders require flood insurance based on FEMA maps. I guess your point could be "well, I could borrow from Uncle Phil" but that's not a particularly realistic argument. The government has insinuated itself in the process and it's not fair to allow minor exceptions to swallow the rule. I guess if you're willing to assume that all people have unlimited resources, then sure. But they don't.
 
2012-11-01 04:17:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.


you're an idiot, brah
 
2012-11-01 04:18:40 PM  

InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

So only water front property is damaged by Hurricanes?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 470x350]


oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point
 
2012-11-01 04:19:30 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah


Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.
 
2012-11-01 04:20:32 PM  
He has a very punchable face. So he's got that going for him
 
2012-11-01 04:21:15 PM  

kingoomieiii: John Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy car insurance he should not buy a car.


You're think of liability coverage. I can most certainly buy a car and not carry collision, and if I run it into a telephone poll it's my loss, no one else's. I'm not aware of any states that require you to carry collision coverage on your car, yet that's what's involved in flood insurance. Flood policies aren't designed to cover you in case your house is picked up by a wave and rammed into your neighbor's garage.
 
2012-11-01 04:21:52 PM  

Garet Garrett: think


thinking, dammit.
 
2012-11-01 04:22:10 PM  

skullkrusher: oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point


You inferred that it's not necessary to have high density populations living near the ocean to operate commercial ports, because people could simply live far enough away to avoid all Hurricane/flood damage and commute to commercial ports. This was an utterly ridiculous and laughable point. Thus, I'm now laughing and ridiculing you.
 
2012-11-01 04:22:42 PM  

Bloody William: poop collected from a large group


www.reactionface.info
 
2012-11-01 04:23:18 PM  

skullkrusher: yeah, that was kind of my point.


My apypolyloggies.
 
2012-11-01 04:23:51 PM  

skullkrusher: oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point


This isn't just about owning a house on a flood plain, which NFIP already adjusts premiums for so you do pay less when you're further away and at lower risk. This is about the fact that we tend to congregate near floodable areas because they happen to offer the best commerce, transportation, and other resources for growth, which is why our great cities almost all were built at the mouths of rivers. This isn't just the issue of having beachside property. It's about covering a risk that densely populated areas tend to face due to historical development.
 
2012-11-01 04:26:50 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: TheOnion: Eh, I'm ok with this. I liken it to obeying an unjust law. If you don't agree with some aspect of the government, it's ok to go with it while trying to promote change imo.

I know you're a troll account, but I also know there's a lot of people who feel this way.

Under that logic, why aren't right wingers also going out and getting abortions every weekend just for fun? I mean it's LEGAL so you may as well do it.

And if there was a legal loophole that you could rape nuns for two days a year, why, it's just common sense to go out and rape nuns there. It's the governments fault, not yours.


First, I don't know why you think I'm a troll account. I've been here a long time, and I don't think it's appropriate to immediately devolve into unproductive name calling.

The thing you're missing here is that this is a financial issue, not a moral issue (like rape, the example you provided). People don't commit crimes because they are morally opposed to them. This would be more like not taking a tax credit because you don't agree with the taxation system. Just because you don't completely agree with the way the government is spending money, doesn't mean you can't benefit from the current system while still opposing it. Again, tax credits are a proper example, moral crimes (like rape) are not.
 
2012-11-01 04:28:53 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point

This isn't just about owning a house on a flood plain, which NFIP already adjusts premiums for so you do pay less when you're further away and at lower risk. This is about the fact that we tend to congregate near floodable areas because they happen to offer the best commerce, transportation, and other resources for growth, which is why our great cities almost all were built at the mouths of rivers. This isn't just the issue of having beachside property. It's about covering a risk that densely populated areas tend to face due to historical development.


What we're talking about it the necessity of people living in Breezy Point, Long Beach, the Jersey Shore, etc because access to the ocean is necessary for commerce and wealth building. No, seaports and refineries need to be on the water. People don't need to live there. Our great cities were build on rivers and the ocean because back then you couldn't commute 20 miles to go to work. You lived where you worked, more or less. Commerce created jobs and attracted people to those jobs. Back in the day, living near your job was pretty much a necessity, generally speaking. If I owned a general store in Tombstone, AZ in 1850, I'd probably live above it. If I owned a general store there today, that is no longer a requirement
 
2012-11-01 04:32:31 PM  

InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point

You inferred that it's not necessary to have high density populations living near the ocean to operate commercial ports, because people could simply live far enough away to avoid all Hurricane/flood damage and commute to commercial ports. This was an utterly ridiculous and laughable point. Thus, I'm now laughing and ridiculing you.


ah so now you're using the weaselly "near" and expanding the damage to include "hurricane" damage and not the flooding from bodies of water as is the topic? I live 3 blocks from the Hudson River and didn't see a drop of flooding. My mom lives 5 miles from the LI Sound and about 10 from the Atlantic - didn't see a drop of ocean flooding either. Is there something precluding either of us from working in some seafaring industry? No, of course not. Your insistence that people MUST live in a flood plain is what is laughable and ridiculous.
 
2012-11-01 04:33:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah

Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.


nah, I didn't argue that. You know that. I know that. Yet again you think playing stupid wins the point.
 
2012-11-01 04:34:24 PM  

Garet Garrett: kingoomieiii: John Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy car insurance he should not buy a car.

You're think of liability coverage. I can most certainly buy a car and not carry collision, and if I run it into a telephone poll it's my loss, no one else's. I'm not aware of any states that require you to carry collision coverage on your car, yet that's what's involved in flood insurance. Flood policies aren't designed to cover you in case your house is picked up by a wave and rammed into your neighbor's garage.


What are you saying there?

What flood insurance does cover (meaning standard homeowners' does not): flooding from anything other than plumbing. This includes rain, floodwaters, storm surge, wind-driven rain and wind-driven storm surge. I think even if rain leaks through your roof, standard insurance won't cover it - you'll need your NFIP policy.
 
2012-11-01 04:37:03 PM  

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule


It's a good thing that natural disasters only effect people within 2 miles of the coastline.

Also, it's not like these natural disasters seem to be happening right now at a far more frequent rate compared to a few decades ago.
 
2012-11-01 04:37:44 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah

Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.

nah, I didn't argue that. You know that. I know that. Yet again you think playing stupid wins the point.


As opposed to your well thought out and serious argument that there is no economic reason for anyone to live on the island of Manhattan.
 
2012-11-01 04:38:07 PM  

schrodinger: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

It's a good thing that natural disasters only effect people within 2 miles of the coastline.

Also, it's not like these natural disasters seem to be happening right now at a far more frequent rate compared to a few decades ago.


it's a good thing you didn't read the thread as feigning ignorance of the topic allowed you to make this insightful comment
 
2012-11-01 04:38:36 PM  

Garet Garrett: You're correct; I'd forgotten about that. FEMA underwrites the policies. But it doesn't write them, or price them (the more important point), if memory serves. Flood insurance rates are market based.


Yes it does. Your flood premium will be the same regardless of whether your homeowners insurance is USAA, State Farm, Allstate, Tijuana Mutual, or whatever. Insurance companies do not price the policy--not could they, because it's not their policy. (The only possible variable may be whatever structural limit of insurance your company calculates for your home and the limit of insurance they calculate for your homeowner's policy--Company A may value it higher than Company B--but the rate [$X.XX per $1000 of value] is going to be the same regardless of what insurance company you buy the flood policy through. And this could be a possible factor only on low-value properties, valued at below the maximum limits of $250K that can be written on any NFIP policy.)

And no, the flood insurance rates are not really "market based." They're risk-based--the rate is calculated based on a combination of relative flood risk for the location times the limit of coverage. Having said that, though, in many locations the NFIP rates are not actuarially sound. High-risk areas are priced too low, and are below the rate that would be actuarially indicated for the risk of loss. The thought is that the true actuarially-indicated rate would be so high tthat nobody could afford it (which means they couldn't get a mortgage on the house). To some extent, these are subsidized by charging rates that are a little too high in low-risk areas, but to a greater extent, these rates are subsidized by the government--i.e., the taxpayers. In recent years, there have been significant strides made to make the NFIP rates more reflective of the true risks, and they've come a long way, but they're still got quite a ways to go.

It's a Congressionally-approved requirement that any federally insured or regulated lenders require flood insurance based on FEMA maps. I guess your point could be "well, I could borrow from Uncle Phil" but that's not a particularly realistic argument. The government has insinuated itself in the process and it's not fair to allow minor exceptions to swallow the rule. I guess if you're willing to assume that all people have unlimited resources, then sure. But they don't

I don't know, you may be right about this. But it's kind of a moot point--no lender with a brain--federally backed or not--is going to give you a mortgage on a house in the flood plain without you insuring it and naming them as a loss payee under the policy. Because they know that, if there's a flood and you have no insurance, you'll leave them holding the bag by walking away from the house and letting them foreclose on a pile of sticks, which means they'll never recover the money you borrowed from them. Which is a risk no lender would be dumb enough to take.
 
2012-11-01 04:40:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah

Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.

nah, I didn't argue that. You know that. I know that. Yet again you think playing stupid wins the point.

As opposed to your well thought out and serious argument that there is no economic reason for anyone to live on the island of Manhattan.


ok, step one: you admit you intentionally "misunderstood" the topic? That's uncharacteristically honest of you.
ok, step two: no, there is no economic reason related to manning "shipping ports [which]have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth" why someone must live in Manhattan. In fact, I'd wager the overwhelming majority of people who do work the ports in NY do not live in Manhattan.
ok, step three: PFQ pretends he still doesn't get it
 
2012-11-01 04:42:13 PM  

skullkrusher: What we're talking about it the necessity of people living in Breezy Point, Long Beach, the Jersey Shore, etc because access to the ocean is necessary for commerce and wealth building. No, seaports and refineries need to be on the water. People don't need to live there. Our great cities were build on rivers and the ocean because back then you couldn't commute 20 miles to go to work. You lived where you worked, more or less. Commerce created jobs and attracted people to those jobs. Back in the day, living near your job was pretty much a necessity, generally speaking. If I owned a general store in Tombstone, AZ in 1850, I'd probably live above it. If I owned a general store there today, that is no longer a requirement


You're asking for communities to fundamentally restructure and relocate on a regional scale because of a single threat that is seasonal and, while present, not one that constantly affects it. That is unfeasible. While not an absolute necessity, geographical proximity is still a vital part of... well, all real estate. The danger of floods, present or not, does not change the fact that we have created very large communities in areas close to the water?

To put it more clearly, do you really think that because of Sandy people in Staten Island or the west village are thinking, "Well, shiat, I wish I was living in Hackettstown because of all this?"
 
2012-11-01 04:42:33 PM  
You mean this dick
On December 28, 1984, during an interview for 20/20 on professional wrestling, wrestler David Schultz struck Stossel after Stossel stated that he thought professional wrestling was "fake". Stossel stated that he suffered from pain and buzzing in his ears eight weeks after the assault.[79] Stossel sued and obtained a settlement of $425,000 from the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). In his book, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, he writes that he has come to regret doing so, having adopted the belief that lawsuits harm hundreds of innocent people

But did he then return the money?
 
2012-11-01 04:47:21 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: What we're talking about it the necessity of people living in Breezy Point, Long Beach, the Jersey Shore, etc because access to the ocean is necessary for commerce and wealth building. No, seaports and refineries need to be on the water. People don't need to live there. Our great cities were build on rivers and the ocean because back then you couldn't commute 20 miles to go to work. You lived where you worked, more or less. Commerce created jobs and attracted people to those jobs. Back in the day, living near your job was pretty much a necessity, generally speaking. If I owned a general store in Tombstone, AZ in 1850, I'd probably live above it. If I owned a general store there today, that is no longer a requirement

You're asking for communities to fundamentally restructure and relocate on a regional scale because of a single threat that is seasonal and, while present, not one that constantly affects it. That is unfeasible. While not an absolute necessity, geographical proximity is still a vital part of... well, all real estate. The danger of floods, present or not, does not change the fact that we have created very large communities in areas close to the water?

To put it more clearly, do you really think that because of Sandy people in Staten Island or the west village are thinking, "Well, shiat, I wish I was living in Hackettstown because of all this?"


no, I'm not. The ONLY thing I am arguing - which began as a joke about Honda Mules - is that it is not necessary for people to live in flood plains to maintain and run shipyards. That was true long ago. That is not true now.
 
2012-11-01 04:47:52 PM  
Oh, also - the average cost of an NFIP policy is $600.

Per year.

// $50/month - less than most people pay for cars, mortgages/rent, gas, beer...
// to insure your house and many of the things in it - average cost of a house (especially the 30-year mortgage cost) is FAR greater than $50/mo, and well worth paying that to insure it against the most common type of damage
// source - floodsmart.gov
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report