I think that $200BB is a bit small given where the report implies the quake would hit. That is arguably some of the densly packed commercial and residential real estate outside of SF or NY in the whole US. I would think that you could easily double or triple that number and still not be overshooting the damage potential. The downside is that most of the area in danger of being damaged or destroyed isn’t insured for quake, but would for the fire following as one clever poster mentioned. The Feds would have to print a lot of new money to pay for the damage brought about by the “big one”
good proofreaders at IJ
:-( i thought i was LOL
The cost of our quake insurance just jumped approximately 100%. Perhaps this report is the reason?
No mention of the role of liquefaction in this scenario. I wonder why.
the headline originally said $200 without the B
Don’t lose those matches. Fire deductible is a lot less.
I think that $200BB is a bit small given where the report implies the quake would hit. That is arguably some of the densly packed commercial and residential real estate outside of SF or NY in the whole US. I would think that you could easily double or triple that number and still not be overshooting the damage potential. The downside is that most of the area in danger of being damaged or destroyed isn’t insured for quake, but would for the fire following as one clever poster mentioned. The Feds would have to print a lot of new money to pay for the damage brought about by the “big one”