jacob wrote:Since insurance companies have researched the probabilities and scenarios complete with actual numbers and impact (link above), I don't really see the point in arguing based on speculating or fantasizing about how odds could/should be much different than what they are known to be. The risk is well-defined. It's the topic of actuaries and commodity traders, not fiction writers. The personal decision is merely whether to act on this knowledge.
I am not disputing the odds of it happening. I am disputing your interpretation of what will happen after the fact. You keep saying that it won't happen overnight but then use these analogies that are instantaneously catastrophic.
jacob wrote:You can compare this to a boat. Once you broach, what you have is what you have strapped onto your person. There's no time or opportunity to go below and fetch a life jacket.........
jacob wrote:It's not different than the decision of whether the keep a fire-extinguisher around. I do that too. Three in fact: Bedroom, kitchen, and car. Not because of a fear of fire, but because fires do happen and because extinguishers make a big difference (compared to filling a bucket) if there is a fire.
Yes, shelves are temporarily cleared after a storm. We are not talking about a storm, right?
I think you left out some important factor from this calculation.
jacob wrote:The decision is simple: if probability * cost of no precaution > cost of precaution then take precaution; otherwise ignore.
I see it like this:
(Probability * (A= Benefits of Precaution)) - (B= Cost of Precaution) > (Probability *(C= Cost of no precaution)) - (D= Benefit of no precaution) then take the precaution.
We are an action oriented society so it is a common mistake to forget that inaction (refraining from action) can be beneficial. Often it is better to do nothing than it is to take action. It is important to actually take into account the benefits of inaction. That is the opposite of sticking my head in the sand. But we as a society are biased toward action and we are driven by the precautionary principle so we are likely to forget to factor those into the calculation.
What is the lifetime benefit of not having an extra storage room full of food? Or a big garage? Or a storm cellar? How much to heat the room for a lifetime. How much to insure it? How much will I pay in taxes on the room over my lifetime? How long will my commute be so that I can afford a home with such a room and what will the health costs of that commute be? How much extra will I pay over the life of my mortgage for the room?
How many life hours will I spend earning the money to pay for the room and what are the opportunity costs of those life hours?
I am sure many would add another function to the calculation,
the anxiety coefficient to factor in how it makes them feel. Do you feel vulnerable when your pantry is empty? Do you feel insulated from the hostile world out there when you have a hundred pounds of oats*? It feels better to act (fill the pantry full of two months worth of food) than to fully calculate the many costs involved in having a full pantry.
We fail to notice that these feelings build on themselves. Today I need 100 gallons of water to feel safe. Tomorrow I will need a well and the next day a stream. This is where the stockpiles and preps can become like your #1.
jacob wrote:Number one is not getting reliant/dependent on some kind of [prescription] drug.
Medication of a different sort.
And don't get me started on the moral hazards of having stockpiles.
*BTW I have a hundred pounds of oats in my secret lair (seriously!) stored in gamma seal dog food containers. I bought it because it was cheap at 45 cents a pound and we will eat every last bit.