3 ms·
> So your alternative of the fraud insurance we currently have is to just end fraud? I left that little blurb about reducing fraud at the end of that post beca
by grog454 5y ago
> So your alternative of the fraud insurance we currently have is to just end fraud?
I left that little blurb about reducing fraud at the end of that post because I was trying to anticipate the (shallow) counter-argument: "what's the alternative"? "End"ing fraud, by the way, would be a great alternative to the implicit insurance premium we pay if it was at all viable.
To give you some examples of what "more effort in to the prevention of theft/fraud" looks like cf: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43925.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43925.pdf
- vel0city 5y agoAnd we could just eliminate rape if we tried harder, obviously. Why hasn't Abbott eliminated rape in Texas yet?! Look, I agree we should try harder to reduce crime. But arguing having insurance against fraud is bad and we should instead just try to get rid of crime seems incredibly naive. Sure, there are things which could potentially be done to help reduce fraud, but there will still be fraud. In which case the value from the insurance is still >0 for the victims of said fraud. And a ton of Americans will still be a victim of fraud even if we try harder with technology available today. If we were to move to all Blockchain transactions, those people would have no recourse.