Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Dimmauk]

Most insurance companies have flood exclusion written in the coverage agreement. Your friend should get coverage from National Flood Insurance Program, a state sponsored insurance pool that has been around since 1968.
more reading here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFIP

Too bad we don't have that in Texas. Some of the homes destroyed by Hurricane Ike, will not be covered because according to some insurance companies they were damaged/destroyed by the Storm Surge, and not by the Hurricane.

[aurik]

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state…. The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

- (The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism)

SOUNDS SOCIALIST TO ME

[Olo401]

Glad to know I'm on the same line of reasoning as Adam Smith. Then again, I was already in tune with Nash's Equilibrium, which is a correction on Smith's model.

[0ni0n]

Too bad we don't have that in Texas. Some of the homes destroyed by Hurricane Ike, will not be covered because according to some insurance companies they were damaged/destroyed by the Storm Surge, and not by the Hurricane.

Yea, I can see why. I remember Travelers Insurance paid 4 billion dollars for damages caused by Hurricane Katrina back in 2004.

Flood damages are excluded in insurance policies is because they are considered as an "Act of God", which states

Act of God is a legal term[1] for events outside of human control, such as sudden floods or other natural disasters, for which no one can be held responsible. This does not protect those who put others in danger of acts of nature through negligence, such as an adult who instructs a group of children to stand under a tree to escape a lightning storm.[citation needed]
The legal term, "Act of God", does not necessarily imply that a God had a direct intervention which specifically caused a "natural" occurrence or disaster.

[0ni0n]

Glad to know I'm on the same line of reasoning as Adam Smith. Then again, I was already in tune with Nash's Equilibrium, which is a correction on Smith's model.

Nvm, I see what you mean.

[Kuya]

The great scandal is, how many Americans have somehow been convinced that celebrating contempt for their fellow countrymen within a construct that was meant for the common well being and protection of its constituents, the very basic purpose of the State, is a bad thing. What has happened to the US?

Furthermore, among many first world countries, Americans get taxed the least, even with this tax increase for the higher socioeconomic ladder. Funny thing is, i've heard say that even with Obama's tax increases, they're actually not getting taxed enough in proportion to what they've been winning for the last twenty years.

[Zosi]

Most insurance companies have flood exclusion written in the coverage agreement. Your friend should get coverage from National Flood Insurance Program, a state sponsored insurance pool that has been around since 1968.
more reading here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFIP

Most insurance companies flat-out refuse to provide flood insurance because there's no free-market way to afford it. Flood threats only affect certain areas, so there's no way to spread the costs between enough people to make it affordable to the people who live in those areas. They used to get around that back in the day by just lying to people and saying that *everyone* needs flood insurance whether you live in a flood plain or not, but that didn't work out very well in the long run. Careful bringing the subject up here though, you'll get people like Remyo making bold claims about how anyone who builds in a flood plain deserves to have their property destroyed, children drowned, etc.

[Olo401]

The great scandal is, how many Americans have somehow been convinced that celebrating contempt for their fellow countrymen within a construct that was meant for the common well being and protection of its constituents, the very basic purpose of the State, is a bad thing. What has happened to the US?

Furthermore, among many first world countries, Americans get taxed the least, even with this tax increase for the higher socioeconomic ladder. Funny thing is, i've heard say that even with Obama's tax increases, they're actually not getting taxed enough in proportion to what they've been winning for the last twenty years.

Of course not - that would mean a tax rate high enough to pay off the national debt in a couple years. That's most likely never going to happen; if anything we'll be back at the rates during the Clinton years, with adjustments down for the middle & lower class and a change in the cap for FICA/Social Security, which will be a gradual pay-down starting once we recover from this financial mess.

[Olo401]

Nvm, I see what you mean.

Oh good 'cause I wasn't sure how to reply to ya!
I'm not good with game theory.. economics I'm a little bit better.

[0ni0n]

Oh good 'cause I wasn't sure how to reply to ya!
I'm not good with game theory.. economics I'm a little bit better.

The Nash Equilibrium is an extension of game theory, that's why I asked. I wasn't sure how Nash Equilibrium relates to Adam Smith's model, then it all came back to me.

Adam Smith's model states that all members of a group must do what's best for themselves in order to get the optimal outcome for the group..

Nash Equilibrium revised Smith's model by stating that, all members of a group must do not only what's best for themselves, but also what's best for the group as a whole, in order to get the optimal outcome for the group.

<3 economics

[Olo401]

it isn't situational, give me an example of a poor person being poor that isn't a result of them failing.

Since you asked...

[Olo401]

The Nash Equilibrium is an extension of game theory, that's why I asked. I wasn't sure how Nash Equilibrium relates to Adam Smith's model, then it all came back to me.

Adam Smith's model states that all members of a group must do what's best for themselves in order to get the optimal outcome for the group..

Nash Equilibrium revised Smith's model by stating that, all members of a group must do not only what's best for themselves, but also what's best for the group as a whole, in order to get the optimal outcome for the group.

<3 economics

Ahh ok I had it kinda backwards.. I was always of the belief that both were economic models that were later used in game theory and political science applications.

[ZarakiKujata]

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need...
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

- (Book of Acts 2:44-45, 4:34-35)


The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state…. The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

- (The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism)

God and Adam Smith are clearly commies wtf

[Correction]

Nobody remembers that scene from A Beautiful Mind?

[Seraph]

Nobody remembers that scene from A Beautiful Mind?

Go for the blonde, everyone loses, go for her friends, everyone wins~

[Beckwin]

well that's just because brunettes are superior

[Remyo]

Since you asked...

they failed get into a line of work that isn't easily replaceable, nor did they put away money for a "rainy day"

[0ni0n]

they failed get into a line of work that isn't easily replaceable, nor did they put away money for a "rainy day"

Jeez dude, you still trying?

[Khamsin]

Since you asked...

As tearfully written as it was, nobody suffered yet, and whoever does get laid off can get another job. They said that for them to succeed, someone else has to fall... but "fall" in this case just means get laid off, collect unemployment, and find another job.

About a month and a half ago, I was laid off and given $6k in severance. I put my resume online, didn't even apply to anything, I just uploaded it to monster and forgot about it and left on a 4 day camping trip. By the end of the first day, I had 5 calls. The next morning, while the bacon was sizzling on the camp stove, I had a phone interview. When I got back from my trip, I had an in person interview. A couple days later, I had a new job with a $3k signing bonus and $15k higher salary than I was making before. All within 2 weeks of losing my old job. I only had time to collect a single $541 unemployment check.

Now, sometimes it takes longer to find a job. 6 years ago I was unemployed for 8 months before I found something. But I found something, nonetheless, and survived just fine.

If he gets laid off and can't find another job, that is failing. He should have been looking the day he got that notice.

[Beckwin]

they were no more negligent than a trust fund baby or a CEO who gets a multimillion dollar payoff for being fired.