←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 1 comments | 17 Jan 25 00:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
bluedevil2k ◴[17 Jan 25 01:50 UTC] No.42733208[source]▶
Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we say the same about people building and rebuilding over and over in these disaster areas.
replies(20): >>42733219 #>>42733293 #>>42733338 #>>42733367 #>>42733486 #>>42733536 #>>42733984 #>>42734013 #>>42734047 #>>42734060 #>>42734202 #>>42734459 #>>42734714 #>>42734874 #>>42739590 #>>42740487 #>>42741749 #>>42742138 #>>42743881 #>>42744799 #
1. nullc ◴[17 Jan 25 04:48 UTC] No.42734202[source]▶
> the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there

I'm not so sure. The Pacific Palisades have astronomical real estate prices. (actually costly property in Florida isn't cheap either). I think the insurance costs would come out of the property prices.

I say this on the basis that the prices the real estate sells for is already what the market will tolerate, if there are other costs to owning it-- then the remaining part the market will tolerate will be less.

Perhaps a result of this is that it may only be realistic to construct lower costs 'disposable' cabins in areas with higher disaster risk... if so, that wouldn't sound like an unreasonable way to allocate resources.