Is the world becoming uninsurable?

That seems incredibly dangerous. As you said the wind can pick them up and cause an inferno.

If you want to do controlled fires IN ADDITION to the fire suppression system, you can. If fires are the only way to neutralize the fuel, at least control them, and don’t allow any uncontrolled fire to spread and get out of hand. The controlled burns would be planned in advance, done on good days and isolated from spreading too far. Of course those burns would be excluded from the fire suppression system.

But it seems reckless to just “let the fires spread”. You need actual control over fires if you want to have any chance of avoiding disasters.

Imagine you did this in any other area where you're in charge of a system. For example you run a forum and refuse to implement any sort of moderation or spam control. You claim we shouldn't put anything in place to clamp down on it and need to let things run their course naturally, because sometimes risking spam is necessary to get really good updates about stuff by experts. The proper thing to do, then, is to intercept spam from spreading as much as possible but then carve out a whitelist of exceptions. Not to simply not have an anti-spam system at all.

> the entire idea of being an "insurer of last resort" is based on an unlimited supply of money to fund losses that no longer make financial sense

Key insight here. Insurer of last resort == bag-holder for negative EV proposition.

The problem is that in American home-buying, insurance is often compulsory for a purchase with a mortgage. This makes sense from the bank's perspective--they want to insure their collateral. However, the system doesn't really have an answer for "what happens when their collateral becomes uninsurable?" Even though lenders have force-placed insurance, even those insurers can deny coverage in certain circumstances (e.g. flood plain). This puts insurers in a position to de-facto foreclose on not just one person's house, but swaths of houses in regions they (as an industry) deem risky.

I'm not sure what the answer is here other than forcing insurers to insure (which would raise premiums for everyone), or creating meta-insurance of some kind (insurance against becoming uninsured).

>Accusing thousands of people of being incompetent is more telling of you than them.

Not me. Facts on the ground do it. Honest question - if I wish upon you every medical professional from now on that treats you and your family to be as competent as the part of the administrative state that is responsible for wild fire management and prevention in LA - will you take that as a blessing or a curse?

That is a fascinating cultural perspective and explains a lot of things to me:

I've always treated cars like houses are in the USA- I buy an older higher end car like a Porsche, keep it in perfect shape, and expect it to appreciate- and it does. Most cars I've owned I ultimately sold for much more than I paid. I've never understood why anyone would waste money on a depreciating car, especially when a fully depreciated high end car is so much nicer and cheaper than a low end new one. Airplanes are not mechanically that different than a car, yet generally last and hold value if maintained.

I've also never understood why people in the USA assume houses will always appreciate, as if it is a law of nature or something- when at its core houses can't appreciate forever relative to inflation, because there is a hard cap somewhere below people paying 100% of income for housing. This basically proves it is just a combination of a culture that values older housing in the USA and regulatory capture preventing new construction. New houses are often seen as "cold," "sterile," or "lacking character" in the USA- and the stereotype of a successful wealthy person is in a giant old mansion.