4 ms·
Yes. But not from the same group of people over and over again. At least not in the laissez faire style systems where the market would stop assuming uniform ris
by harshitaneja 3y ago
Yes. But not from the same group of people over and over again. At least not in the laissez faire style systems where the market would stop assuming uniform risk and increase insurance rates to the expected values based on the probabilities of the specific circumstance. In a dirigiste economy, state would choose certain social factors to protect and keep the distribution of costs uniform for the betterment of the whole society. But even in those systems, I am not sure we should have beachfront properties or similar as factors.
(Sorry about my lack of proper vocabulary and jargon in this comment, I seem to have forgotten all of my vocabulary relating to sociology and economics.)
- selectodude 3y agoWhich ends up being the issue with any insurance programs for the uninsurable. 100 percent of the time, it will end up being a subsidy to the policy holder. If it weren’t, they’d be insurable.
- harshitaneja 3y agoExactly. And a market in general wouldn't ever create those programs themselves if they don't provide any direct or indirect profits. So these would be state directed. I am not sure we have any disagreement anywhere. :)
- sokoloff 3y ago> even in those systems, I am not sure we should have beachfront properties or similar as factors If beachfront properties have substantial risks that inland properties don't (such as flooding from storm surge*), then not using is_beachfront? as a factor will end up being a subsidy to the owners of beachfront properties. * - https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/