Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 7:17 pm
Fife wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 7:07 pm
Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 7:01 pm
It ain't the potential buyers who value the fire services. It is the other people in the area who need to be concerned about an out of control conflagration that threatens their property.
The tragedy of the commons is something a market has a hard time solving. Even if you privatize the entire commons. Fire doesn't respect property boundaries.
Nobody offers fire insurance for full reimbursement value in California at a market price?
I had no idea Californians were so exposed to loss. Sounds like a shitty place to live if that's the case.
Maybe environmental hazards should be a consideration for people spending their money on deciding on where to live.
Funny thing is, people value their homes and possessions higher than the market value.
And, environmental hazards have been considered, and it has been considered that anyone contributing to the potential hazard should contribute to the mitigation.
Not for nothing, but what is that old adage about the value of prevention versus the value of cures?
As I figure it, the question is whether free riders are worse than rent seekers. The answer determines the rest of one's economic ideas.
I've been thinking about the way you put this. When you say that people value their property higher than market value, what do you mean by "market value?" I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about some tie-in to available insurance limits, or what?
And on free riders vs. rent seekers, are we still talking about fire prevention / remediation, or something more general.
I'd like to address what you are getting at, but I don't want to go off on some crazy tangent.