Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickff | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why hedging against long-tail events is 'bad'. They bought large quantities of supplies, and hired a bunch of people to build them facilities which could be of benefit in the event of a catastrophe. The tradesmen doing the building were probably happy to do the work, and I am sure the supplies provided a number of manufacturing and administrative jobs. I don't see a problem; unless you think this pandemic was caused by bunker construction.

Is buying a lot of insurance also evil?

View on HN

The issue here is moral hazard. Yes, buying insurance is bad if it disincentivizes you to work your hardest to prevent the outcome that you're insured against.

Not saying that everyone with a bunker falls into this category. But it's certainly true that when the best resourced and connected among us have the means to withdraw comfortably, their aggregate effort to remedy whatever is causing the disruption will diminish.

> "Yes, buying insurance is bad if it disincentivizes you to work your hardest to prevent the outcome that you're insured against."

Most people here have home fire insurance coverage but don't have extinguishers (or haven't checked them in years), sprinklers, or a fire safe. So is fire insurance coverage bad?

”if”

Fire risks the loss of things that insurance cannot replace, such as your face, dog, or offspring.

So does social unrest in the country you grew up in and have lived your entire life. This whole thread is bizarre.

Good point.

I think the fear is of billionaires using money to save the bits they want by running away rather than the bits you want by fixing the society.

Because they want to reap the benefits of a large society to enrich themselves, then cut and run once society faces hard times.

Once this is all over, they'll want to stroll back in like nothing happened. Ideally, we won't let them back in.

Traveling to those bunkers could spread the virus. Just stay home is a completely viable option.

Some basic risk analysis shows the trip increases risks and is therefore a dumb move even if the idea of a bunker could be useful in other situations.

Did any of them actually travelled to their bunker? Or are you blaming them for something that didn't happen?

According to published reports, yes:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to-go...

This is a form of critical thinking error. "They" wanted to build a safe destination in case of a multitude of possible conditions come to occur. You are looking with a historical lens on what has happened and then labeling them "dumb" based on the knowledge we have now. If you look at it that way, almost any disaster planning is "dumb".

No, you misunderstand. I am saying owning a bunker may be a valuable thing in some emergency’s. However, just because this is an emergency does not mean going to a bunker now is a good idea.

There’s something incredibly disingenuous about creating companies around the idea of “making the world a better place” and beading oneself as a world visionary while simultaneously taking extreme measures assuming the worst is about to happen. If the collective sentiment around the ruling class was that the world is becoming a better, safer place, why build the shelter?

> Is buying a lot of insurance also evil?

Generally, I don’t think so. Insurance exists to protect one’s finances, and it’s one of the oldest financial instruments out there. But you can’t eat an insurance policy, it can’t sustain life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com