4 ms·
The other piece of the puzzle is how meaningful the loss is; if such a theft is existentially threatening, and there's a reasonable chance of it, then it may st
by setr 8y ago
The other piece of the puzzle is how meaningful the loss is; if such a theft is existentially threatening, and there's a reasonable chance of it, then it may still be deployed despite not actually saving money.
- taneq 8y agoExactly. Expected payoff is only useful if you have infinite resources. This is why most of us pay for insurance even though in the long run it's guaranteed to cost more than just self-funding any repairs or replacements.
- emodendroket 8y agoI mean, if you are at fault in an accident where several people sustain life-changing injuries, or your home is a total loss, or whatever, then you probably did end coming out ahead with the insurance. Insurance makes the most sense for perils which would be catastrophic for you.
- petre 8y agoIt's insurance against beehive theft, not accident insurance. Are your company insurance policies sold in a package?
- gknoy 8y agoFor the beekeeper in the story, it was catastrophic, in that it wiped out his chance for retirement, he said.
- emodendroket 8y agoIt's just an example.
- paublyrne 8y agoin the long run it's guaranteed to cost more than just self-funding any repairs or replacements If you're talking about home insurance then this is certainly not guaranteed. The primary purpose of home insurance is not in any case to safe you money on small repairs but to protect you from a total loss, say from fire.
- sokoloff 8y agoWhich is a short-run argument that does not refute GP’s point.