Trump surveys devastated Texas as Harvey rages on

[Thakkar]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/28/16213268/harvey-climate-change

 

Climate change did not “cause” Harvey, but it’s a huge part of the story

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^

The global warming scare is a godsend for the insurance industry. It's made to order for them.

 

They can jack up premiums (and have done so) for no reason, purely based on this alarmist scaremongering, and nobody can call them out for sheer profiteering.

 

It's pure capitalist profit created, ironically, by a socialist feel-good fantasy narrative. You might want to ponder that at your next struggle meeting.

That's because there is no such thing as capitalism. If there were, there would be competition over rates. You clearly have a profound understanding of economics and marketplaces.

[RickBradford]

Yes, I do.

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

That's because there is no such thing as capitalism. If there were, there would be competition over rates. You clearly have a profound understanding of economics and marketplaces.

Yes, I do.

 

Just as oil companies can  agree to artificially fix prices and form a cartel, so can insurance companies.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Yes, I do.

Yes, I do.

 

Just as oil companies can  agree to artificially fix prices and form a cartel, so can insurance companies.

There's plenty of evidence for the oil cartel. You got any for a worldwide property insurance cartel? When someone's got nothing they always give it away by invoking conspiracies.

Edited August 31, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[RickBradford]

There have been several recent investigations into cartel-like behaviour amongst insurers, which 30 seconds on Google will inform you about.

 

But that's not really the point.

 

Climate change is such a heaven-sent opportunity for insurance companies that they don't even need to form a cartel to fill their boots. Governments have given them a mandate to charge almost whatever they want for a largely non-existent threat.

 

Governments, essentially, invite the insurance companies to fleece their clients, with no danger of any comeback. It doesn't get any better for capitalists than that.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

There have been several recent investigations into cartel-like behaviour amongst insurers, which 30 seconds on Google will inform you about.

 

But that's not really the point.

 

Climate change is such a heaven-sent opportunity for insurance companies that they don't even need to form a cartel to fill their boots. Governments have given them a mandate to charge almost whatever they want for a largely non-existent threat.

 

Governments, essentially, invite the insurance companies to fleece their clients, with no danger of any comeback. It doesn't get any better for capitalists than that.

Your idea of evidence would get you laughed out of court and scientific discussions. Yet you feel qualified to judge climate science. Just another victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[RickBradford]

With every post, you extravagantly underline my point that the smarter activists have moved on from climate matters to more fertile pastures, but here's something for you to ponder.

 

It was obvious from the beginning of this scare that the insurance companies knew that 'climate' was a dripping roast that they couldn't afford to miss out on, and savvy investors piled in to their stocks. One of the biggest and most shameless is Munich Re, which has been enthusiastically beating the climate drum for years, to very good effect, as those smart enough to invest several years ago will gleefully attest to.

 

https://www.munichre.com/en/ir/shares/dividend/index.html

 

It is, perhaps, ironic, that the major beneficiaries of this Green/Left climate scare are big banks, big insurers, big lawyers, and organised crime, which has cleaned up to a massive degree. I expect the irony is lost on the Green/Left, which remains insulated in its cocoon of self-awarded moral superiority. 

[ilostmypassword]

20 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

With every post, you extravagantly underline my point that the smarter activists have moved on from climate matters to more fertile pastures, but here's something for you to ponder.

 

It was obvious from the beginning of this scare that the insurance companies knew that 'climate' was a dripping roast that they couldn't afford to miss out on, and savvy investors piled in to their stocks. One of the biggest and most shameless is Munich Re, which has been enthusiastically beating the climate drum for years, to very good effect, as those smart enough to invest several years ago will gleefully attest to.

 

https://www.munichre.com/en/ir/shares/dividend/index.html

 

It is, perhaps, ironic, that the major beneficiaries of this Green/Left climate scare are big banks, big insurers, big lawyers, and organised crime, which has cleaned up to a massive degree. I expect the irony is lost on the Green/Left, which remains insulated in its cocoon of self-awarded moral superiority. 

So your evidence is an alleged cartel and the fact the munichre is profitable? You don't have a clue as to what constitutes real evidence.

[Opl]

" We are with you" .. It is probably easier to present oneself as a man with a grip that will repair the damage caused by adversity, than to anticipate and prevent catastrophes, to analyze and understand the phenomena to come in all their complexity

 

1/ Trump rescinded Obama's Flood-Risk Rule Weeks Before Hurricane Harvey hit, aimed at prohibiting the use of federal funds for the construction of infrastructure in areas exposed to flooding.

 What guidelines will Trump give to rebuild tomorrow in the ravaged areas?

2/ Trump also wanted to reduce FEMA's funds and cut EPA's budget as his administration seeks to carve out $54 billion in additional annual funding for Defense and Security spending.to finance other priorities (such as the "wall" on the border with Mexico)..

 Will Trump spare them after Harvey?

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Opl

[Skywalker69]

[Scott]

Continued off-topic bickering will earn suspensions.  

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

Agree. It is expected of him to be there, but that also means he has to meet the people.

[impulse]

On 8/30/2017 at 1:05 PM, Thakkar said:

*Historical note: During Katrina, Obama wasn't president. Republican George W. Bush was.

 

 

Still a flimsy excuse for not showing up.

 

On a more serious note, given the huge number of support and security staff required for a presidential visit, I'm not sure they should even show up at disasters like this.  The victims need all hands on deck manning the rescue craft and rendering assistance.  Not directing traffic and welding down manhole covers to prevent snipers.

 

[Thakkar]

27 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

 

Still a flimsy excuse for not showing up.

 

On a more serious note, given the huge number of support and security staff required for a presidential visit, I'm not sure they should even show up at disasters like this.  The victims need all hands on deck manning the rescue craft and rendering assistance.  Not directing traffic and welding down manhole covers to prevent snipers.

 

Make up your mind. Should leaders show up or not?

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

 

Still a flimsy excuse for not showing up.

 

On a more serious note, given the huge number of support and security staff required for a presidential visit, I'm not sure they should even show up at disasters like this.  The victims need all hands on deck manning the rescue craft and rendering assistance.  Not directing traffic and welding down manhole covers to prevent snipers.

 

Agree with you.

 

The president visiting adds nothing but extra work, which they can do without. But it is expected of him, and not showing would look bad, although IMO better. But since he did show he has certain obligations, like talking to victims, comforting them. None of that happened, which makes this visit double bad IMO.

[Thakkar]

23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agree with you.

 

The president visiting adds nothing but extra work, which they can do without. But it is expected of him, and not showing would look bad, although IMO better. But since he did show he has certain obligations, like talking to victims, comforting them. None of that happened, which makes this visit double bad IMO.

 

In times of crisis, the president is not just a leader, he is also consoler in chief. That's why meeting the victims and the responders is important. It is a morale boost for both at trying times and it encourages more donations and volunteers. It crucially also serves to remind the leader what public service is about.

 

Yes, the visit causes disruptions, but, I think, on balance it does more good than bad. 

[YetAnother]

On 8/30/2017 at 3:44 PM, Jingthing said:

Trying to paint this as a normal flooding event for Houston is beyond idiotic. Houston will never be the same.   

 

 

"Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like

 

It’s time to open our eyes and prepare for the world that’s coming.

 

 

In all of U.S. history, there’s never been a storm like Hurricane Harvey. That fact is increasingly clear, even though the rains are still falling and the water levels in Houston are still rising."

 

 

 

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/28/climate-change-hurricane-harvey-215547

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nitwit ,I lived in two different locations along this path for a total of 11 years and I have been through one of those hurricanes

You are just guessing and poorly at that

Edited September 3, 2017 by YetAnother

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

Nitwit ,I lived in two different locations along this path for a total of 11 years and I have been through one of those hurricanes

You are just guessing and poorly at that

Name calling is all you've got.