Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

    • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Maybe we should have rules in place that provide more protection for actual human beings instead of prioritizing profit margins or pretending that “Basic Economics” is a universal law rather than a guideline of how people interact with each other. Sorry, I’m not mad at you, just the system we live in

      • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        We, did, they were pushed to the side. Those rules and protections were building more reservoirs, keeping those and the current ones full of water, continuous upkeep on fire hydrants, rehiring firefighters who were fired for not taking the vax, regular controlled burns, clearing out the undergrowth, not dumping water into the ocean after rainfall… So, so many that were completely abandoned.

        You seem to think the prices for fire protection came out of nowhere, but they don’t. As these precautions were abandoned one by one, fire insurance went up, because the likelihood of a fire grew exponentially. When government put a cap on price, that effectively made it clear that the company would go bankrupt, completely, because they knew a fire was going to happen eventually.

        We should be mad that those very protections put in place to help people were taken away by the government, not the companies.

        • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Por que no los dos? The government is NOT faultless in this, but how often are those regulations removed because a company lobbyist bribed them hinted very strongly that they would like that?