"With due respect to Peter, there is a flaw in his reasoning." No, he's emphasizing the moral hazard of government bailing out homeowners. If I *know* I live in a high-risk area, I simply put up and buy insurance, build a strong house, I take my chances. But it is unethical and immoral to ask the rest of Americans to bail me out IF a disaster DOES come and destroys my home.
Yeah Insurance is good; but my homeowners went up and they told me it was because of 9-11. So I still paid for someone else's disaster too the insurance company instead of higher Govt Tax. Seem's there is NO WAY OUT!
With due respect to Peter, there is a flaw in his reasoning. If we were supposed to "learn" from disasters and stay away from places which, in his words, "have disasters", then we couldn't live in California for forest fires, landslides and earthquakes, in Washington, Oregon and Wyoming for fear of volcanic eruptions, in the Midwest for tornadoes and floods, in Florida and Louisiana for hurricanes, and so on. There is no place on earth which is not susceptible to some kind of disaster.
'PRONE to moving to these areas'. The excess wealth of the last 2-3 generations has rendered people more primitive. Withering of interindividual support and social cohesion, increases social anxiety and foments regression of conditions for all. Yes, the great america is going down the drain. What an absurd scene to witness.
I had the highest respect for Schiffs' resoning on economic dynamics. I was a bit disapointed when his words where 'people need to suffer the consequences'. Obviously, this attitude shows mental rigidity. And I felt a hint of snobism when he said
"With due respect to Peter, there is a flaw in his reasoning." No, he's emphasizing the moral hazard of government bailing out homeowners. If I *know* I live in a high-risk area, I simply put up and buy insurance, build a strong house, I take my chances. But it is unethical and immoral to ask the rest of Americans to bail me out IF a disaster DOES come and destroys my home.
ftorresgamez 3 years ago
Government has helped oligopolize the insurance companies!
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Yeah Insurance is good; but my homeowners went up and they told me it was because of 9-11. So I still paid for someone else's disaster too the insurance company instead of higher Govt Tax. Seem's there is NO WAY OUT!
rocksiphone 3 years ago
Insurance is always good.
I absolutely hate FOX, he needs to get off that station.
Euph662 3 years ago
I think your right, but lets not forget about Charties. There are thousands of charity groups in America who would help you in a disaster.
Jimraynor45 3 years ago
Peter Schiff is always absolutely right.
puppetjaw 3 years ago 2
This is the purpose of homeowners insurance.
ralphhumacho 3 years ago
With due respect to Peter, there is a flaw in his reasoning. If we were supposed to "learn" from disasters and stay away from places which, in his words, "have disasters", then we couldn't live in California for forest fires, landslides and earthquakes, in Washington, Oregon and Wyoming for fear of volcanic eruptions, in the Midwest for tornadoes and floods, in Florida and Louisiana for hurricanes, and so on. There is no place on earth which is not susceptible to some kind of disaster.
DaveInLV 3 years ago 2
'PRONE to moving to these areas'. The excess wealth of the last 2-3 generations has rendered people more primitive. Withering of interindividual support and social cohesion, increases social anxiety and foments regression of conditions for all. Yes, the great america is going down the drain. What an absurd scene to witness.
4maelstrom 3 years ago
I had the highest respect for Schiffs' resoning on economic dynamics. I was a bit disapointed when his words where 'people need to suffer the consequences'. Obviously, this attitude shows mental rigidity. And I felt a hint of snobism when he said
4maelstrom 3 years ago