3 ms·
> If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as well not exist. I think this might be at the heart of it. The article (about how hard ac
by d136o 5y ago
> If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as well not exist.
I think this might be at the heart of it.
The article (about how hard actuarial math is) and the insurance buyers make the mistake of thinking that all that matters is downside in case of event X with particular probability P. However, instead you have to think about chances of X AND chances of being able to navigate a system that is outright adversarial to parties that are not the insurance companies.
The “house” always wins…
- gruez 5y ago>The article (about how hard actuarial math is) and the insurance buyers make the mistake of thinking that all that matters is downside in case of event X with particular probability P. However, instead you have to think about chances of X AND chances of being able to navigate a system that is outright adversarial to parties that are not the insurance companies. Are people going through and calculating the expected utility of purchasing insurance, and that calculation is being thrown off by counterparty risk, leading them to buy insurance they wouldn't have bought? I doubt it. >The “house” always wins… is there an expectation otherwise? You buy insurance to protect against risks, not because you think it's a positive expected value investment.
- diffeomorphism 5y agoYes, the expectation was that the risks are those you bought insurance for. Additional protection against being bullied by other insurance companies is not obvious.