No. of Recommendations: 1
Just thought I'd point out that the bill just passed in Congress, for which Bush lobbied heavily and which is his "solution" to our economic woes, is a guarantee to bail-out insurance companies if they sustain significant losses due to terrorism.

I assume the idealists will claim this is different and justifiable, because true believers always find ways to explain away inconsistencies in their belief systems, rather than admit that their belief system is imperfect to begin with.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just thought I'd point out that the bill just passed in Congress, for which Bush lobbied heavily and which is his "solution" to our economic woes, is a guarantee to bail-out insurance companies if they sustain significant losses due to terrorism.

I assume the idealists will claim this is different and justifiable, because true believers always find ways to explain away inconsistencies in their belief systems, rather than admit that their belief system is imperfect to begin with.


While it may be less troublesome to answer/assume positions for those with which you may not agree, you might want to make an effort to see what they are saying. Here's a brief response you may want to read: http://www.cato.org/dispatch/11-15-02d.html#1 .

It's not a big stretch to believe that the government can be just as ineffective and resource distorting in the area of terrorism insurance as it has been in medical insurance.

Regards,
fingfool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
guarantee to bail-out insurance companies if they sustain significant losses due to terrorism.


Yes, we'll bail them out, even as they have raised their premiums due to the perceived higher risk of terrorism. So, they collect more money, and if a terrorist event does occur they can wash their hands of it and tell everyone the government is responsible for paying claims. Very convenient.

-hack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Yes, we'll bail them out, even as they have raised their premiums due to the perceived higher risk of terrorism. "

Not holding my breath waiting for my raised insurance rates to be lowered again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just thought I'd point out that the bill just passed in Congress, for which Bush lobbied heavily and which is his "solution" to our economic woes, is a guarantee to bail-out insurance companies if they sustain significant losses due to terrorism.

I assume the idealists will claim this is different and justifiable, because true believers always find ways to explain away inconsistencies in their belief systems, rather than admit that their belief system is imperfect to begin with.


It amazes me that the party the runs on small government and free markets is never taken to task for things like this, steel tariffs and farm subsidies.

Splotto

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm not defending the current administration and I haven't actually read the legislation, but isn't there a substantial ceiling for the losses necessary for this "government reinsurance" to kick in? I'm guessing that it wouldn't kick in until losses mounted to the point where the industry was in jeopardy anyway - in which the government would have to intervene anyway. Seems to me like they're just formailizing what would happen in the event catastrophic losses occured.

The comments to the effect "then why haven't premiums gone down" I agree with.

-J8
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The system we live in is imperfect, solutions are imperfect, the world is imperfect.


Insurance bailout isn't goping to bail out our economy,
it helps loosen thinghs up though.

The alternative is financing availablity either collapses or rises in price sharply.

If a nuke goes off anywhere in the US, everyone's pension , bank , life insurance co, what else is Kaputt, and teh US govt will have to bail everything OUT!!

The govt isn't bailing out insurance cos, the govt is taking war risk, that no one else can offer .

My take anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It amazes me that the party the runs on small government and free markets is never taken to task for things like this, steel tariffs and farm subsidies.

And lumber tariffs.

Equally amazing is the flip side of Clinton railroading NAFTA through. I've taken to musing whether the Democratic Party should be the true political home of Free Traders like myself.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've taken to musing whether the Democratic Party should be the true political home of Free Traders like myself.
------------------
William,

Ableson, in his weekly Barrons column, reviews the election results and offers this quip from another William:

"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It amazes me that the party the runs on small government and free markets is never taken to task for things like this, steel tariffs and farm subsidies.

Organizations such as the Cato Institute (a reference my previous post) and the Heritage Foundation are quite consistent in their views on government subsidies and take politicians to task on these issues constantly. The steel and farm subsidies are concessions from gutless politicians of both parties.


Equally amazing is the flip side of Clinton railroading NAFTA through. I've taken to musing whether the Democratic Party should be the true political home of Free Traders like myself.

As I recall NAFTA passed with overwhelming Republican support and was fought primarily by the Democrats in Congress and particularly those with strong union backing. NAFTA may have been a step in the right direction for Free Traders but is a ways removed from the ideal of free Free Traders like myself.

Regards,
fingfool



Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement