4 ms·
A curious way of thinking. I would say insurance is exactly the opposite of gambling.
by plafl 6y ago
A curious way of thinking. I would say insurance is exactly the opposite of gambling.
- nkingsy 6y agoGambling is taking risks with an expectation of possible gain. In this case, the risk of never needing insurance is balanced by the gain of whatever is insured if it is lost. One could argue that this is decreasing risk in exchange for less gain, but that’s still using a tool for balancing risk and gain, aka gambling. Go too deep and life is gambling.
- JeffL 6y agoGambling at a casino is trading expected value for more variance of outcome. Insurance is trading expected value for less variance.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dnautics 6y agoI believe a similar sentiment exists in Japanese culture, where life insurance took many decades to take hold.
- ralusek 6y agoNo, it's not. It's actually a way of shorting something, you are effectively betting that the covered entity will fail. If priced appropriately to risk and the value of the entity, it can be thought of as low-risk hedge, but it's still a bet. In The Big Short, for example, when they wanted to short the housing market, the structure that banks set up for them was effectively an insurance policy. They had to pay a huge fee every so often, which represented the equivalent of an insurance policy payment, but in the event that the value of the market dropped below some threshold, they were entitled to a payout...which is exactly what happened. Just because it's gambling doesn't mean it's risky or not properly risk-assessed.
- al_chemist 6y agoInsurance is marketed as opposite of gambling, which is brilliant. Psychology says that people would rather not lose $10 than win $10 so reframing it as "protection from loss" is great move.
- cyphar 6y agoIf someone sells you insurance, they are taking a bet that you will (on average) not cash out any more money than you put in through your premiums minus any profit margin. So you could argue that in the casino analogy, the insurance company is the player and the policy holder is the house. I believe that they find it immoral to be involved in any aspect of gambling, including being on the "house side" of a gamble. I personally think it's a bigger leap to argue that Social Security is a form of insurance, but I guess that depends on your political viewpoint when it comes to whether Social Security is a kind of bank account that holds your money in escrow or if it's a government-run social program that provides a guaranteed pension. There is still a kind of gamble going on, but it's more that you're gambling on the government upholding today's promises into the future (when you retire) and if that's immoral then so are many other things in life (such as money).
- w0mbat 6y agoInsurance is exactly the same thing as gambling. For example, when someone buys an extended warranty on a new TV they are betting that it will break before a certain date (and after the factory warranty has expired). Most customers lose that bet and wasted their money.
- naasking 6y ago> I would say insurance is exactly the opposite of gambling. Insurance is literally "hedging your bets". So getting the insurance isn't the gamble, you get insurance when you're about to gamble. So it enables gambling in a way that wasn't possible before.