|
>> What would actually happen under Strawman's 'free-market' system is the following: >> Because fires of major intensity may not occur for 50 -100 years, the private
>> firefighting companies would wind back expensive infrastructure to cut costs
>> and raise their fees for profit. Less fire trucks means savings on fire trucks and fire-fighters, and greater
payouts for burned-out buildings. You are claiming that the optimal configuration (minimized overall cost) is
achieved by less fire trucks - ie that the government got it wrong
(again). Hardly a strong argument for government monopoly then, is it? >> When the next one in 100 year fire comes to Canberra, the three fire trucks
>> left would not attend because they would not know which houses were insured by
>> which companies. Right, so large cadaster spatial-databases, mobile phones, and radio would
make this impossible? There are Internet sites right now which make cadaster
spatial-data available to any surfer. Are you suggesting that in 100 years that the
insurance companies won't have learned about this technology yet? >> The insurance companies would then goes broke and the Directors would take up
>> residence in Majorca and develop serious lung problems; escaping the following
>> Royal Commission, which finds 'perhaps that was'nt a good idea'. The total damage bill is around $200Million I think. Even if all the losses
were incurred by one company, this is unlikely to bring down a major
insurance company. A small insurance company which specialized in insuring
homes in a particular neighborhood might be in a bad way, but if people are
stupid enough to insure with that kind of insurer - then let them. There are many major companies who owe much more than $200Million - eg to
banks and suchlike. Very few directors skip to Majorca. Remember that Skase was
dealing with the high-risk end of the market - building luxury resorts etc, and
riding a real-estate bubble. Insurance companies are dealing at the other end
of the spectrum - they deal with spreading risk - they are fundamentally
conservative. This does not mean they always get it right - but they are not high-flying
edge-of-the-seat Skase types. They are also generally much more closely
regulated than property developers. >> As for Stawman's simplistic "food" analogy, all that need be said is
>> "trains"! OK .. "trains". Nope, it didn't work for me. Unless you mean the Victorian fiasco in which the government leases out
government assets to the bidder who demands the lowest level of subsidies to
keep WW-II vintage rolling stock moving, and who therefore have no incentive to
actually improve the system, because they will then have to bid more to
re-lease their own capital improvements in the next bidding round? .. hardly a shining example of free enterprise is it? >> VOR - TheVoiceOfReason Still waiting for that.
| 
