AIG's private firefighters help out the rich

I'm on the other side of this one, O_T. You can't fight fires with a glorified pickup truck. And I'm guessing the training these "firefighters" receive is a bit inadequate. Someone (or many someones) is gonna get killed one of these days, lawsuits will ensue and a company like AIG will regret ever getting into the firefighting business. Certain jobs should be left to the professionals.

 

It's probably an excerpt from her new book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" which was published about a month or so ago.

All 600 pages of it is on my night table waiting while I finish a couple of other books.

 

So anything where someone might get killed shouldn't be done by the private sector? Sorry, but I'm guessing AIG and the homeowners are pretty happy with what these guys did, and they're pretty happy to be employed by AIG. How is this not a win-win?

 

I don't think they should replace public fire protection, but this is pretty progressive thinking on AIG's part. You can spend $x million on your own private firefighting force, or you can spend $x billion paying out claims. It makes perfect business sense.

 

I'm not saying AIG doesn't have the right to do this. But there are certain jobs (firefighting, policing) that municipalities are much more efficient at than the private sector, and when private firms take over those jobs, the chance for things to go wrong is pretty high.

 

I'm not in any way suggesting they replace the fire departments. But as novelist said, it's pretty darn progressive on their part. And in this case it's certainly helping to keep the cost of insurance down.

 

I don't have a problem with AIG servicing their customers with preventative measures such as fire retardant at the beginning of fire season.

But I sure as fuck have a problem with this pick-and-choose, who-is-more-worthy system of managing a disaster. If there is a house on fire, and you have water, put the fucking thing out. It's that simple. It shouldn't matter if it belongs to a "customer" who is making money for your company.

The problem I see with for-profit companies is just that: they're for-profit. We as journalists complain about our own companies, those of the double-digit profit margins that have decimated the product in the name of profit. What makes us think the privatization of essential services won't result in the same loss of quality?

 

I have no problem with a company developing creative procedures to protect its investments.

 

FWIW, it really didn't seem from reading the thing that these guys would only save their customer's property. It might get preference, by they quote the guy in the piece (not going back to get the exact quote) saying something about saving a house next to their customers. Yeah, one next to them went up like a candle, but this is going to happen to any group with limited resources (read any group). They won't get to every fire, sometimes even ones raging right beside them.
This is a GREAT idea by AIG. Shouldn't replace the real deal, but to supplement it, that's just dandy.

 

I don't have a problem with this. I don't think most people would.

But I, too, would caution against using this to make a case for private-sector panacea.

Smartest paragraph in the thread.

 

Does anyone think this will lead to a widespread privatization of essential services? I do not. I simply see it as an investment company protecting some of its most volatile assets. A hedge, of sorts.

 

It's no different than reinsurance. Insurance companies insure themselves against catastrophic events. This is a form of reinsurance for fires.