3 ms·
I think you're wrong. I think that all evidence shows us that it's much more effective to educate the consumers of a good/service than to educate the producers.
by harryh 11y ago
I think you're wrong. I think that all evidence shows us that it's much more effective to educate the consumers of a good/service than to educate the producers. An educated and informed public is the most powerful force there is in guaranteeing a quality product.
In all seriousness, I obviously don't think a test should be required to buy insurance, but I do think that government putting a little more effort into educating the populace on financial topics (including insurance) would do much more good than having brokers jump through silly hoops like the one under discussion here.
- mikk14 11y agoThe problem arises when you ask yourself the question: "Where does this customer education stops?". Of course it is better to have a public competent in buying insurance, food, housing, financial products, health treatments, etc... But you are requiring to put an amount of knowledge into every head that simply cannot fit. It's much better to train the specialized provider, because then each head has only to fit the knowledge required for their own profession. This is feasible and with much less effort. Slightly worse result, but there's no free lunch.
- CydeWeys 11y agoYou cannot realistically expect every person to know the ins and outs of every product. I cannot be an expert on insurance, mortgages, food safety, automobiles, mechanics, etc., and it's ludicrous to say that everyone should be. You know how dumb the median person is? Half the people are dumber than that. So given that it will never happen that everyone is an expert at everything, we need alternate systems to protect people. Like licensing and regulation. All you've got is an impossible pipe dream.
- nommm-nommm 11y agoEspecially when misinformation is so easy to spread.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]