3 ms·

Because they’re the ones who are supposed to pay money when shit blows up, and they are finally at the point where the giant flaming signs that it’s going to al

Because they’re the ones who are supposed to pay money when shit blows up, and they are finally at the point where the giant flaming signs that it’s going to all blow up are within foreseeable shareholder ownership periods.

Xylakant 1y ago
Insurance is supposed to average out small probability high impact events across a large number of smaller payments from more people. It is entirely expected to loose money on insurance as a single customer - that's usually great. It means your house hasn't burned down, you're in good healt and you bike hasn't been stolen. If we're now moving towards a world where due to man-made climate change certain classes of risks are no longer insurable, everyone looses.
- esseph 1y ago
  I would think insurance would be among the least of worries?
  - _carbyau_ 1y ago
    I think they are using Insurance as a predictive indicator of how terrible things are. So you are largely agreeing. IE: 1. insurance spreads a hurt across a society, using money as an instrument. 2. If insurance doesn't work anymore then the hurt is too large for society! This linking of 1 and 2 may not be entirely true due to insurance not necessarily being a perfectly efficient "spreader" across society. But I think in practical terms it is close enough.
    - Xylakant 1y ago
      The linking doesn’t need to be perfect to have real-world consequences: as the article explains, dues to increasing heavy weather events, home owner insurance is harder or even impossible to obtain. Without HOI, you won’t get a mortgage, because that would mean the bank partially enters into that risk. No mortgage means a lot of people cannnot afford to own a house or flat.
  - throw0101d 1y ago
    > I would think insurance would be among the least of worries? Canary in the coal mine: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_species
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  “If”?
pixxel 1y ago
[dead]

Xylakant 1y ago

Insurance is supposed to average out small probability high impact events across a large number of smaller payments from more people. It is entirely expected to loose money on insurance as a single customer - that's usually great. It means your house hasn't burned down, you're in good healt and you bike hasn't been stolen. If we're now moving towards a world where due to man-made climate change certain classes of risks are no longer insurable, everyone looses.

esseph 1y ago
I would think insurance would be among the least of worries?
- _carbyau_ 1y ago
  I think they are using Insurance as a predictive indicator of how terrible things are. So you are largely agreeing. IE: 1. insurance spreads a hurt across a society, using money as an instrument. 2. If insurance doesn't work anymore then the hurt is too large for society! This linking of 1 and 2 may not be entirely true due to insurance not necessarily being a perfectly efficient "spreader" across society. But I think in practical terms it is close enough.
  - Xylakant 1y ago
    The linking doesn’t need to be perfect to have real-world consequences: as the article explains, dues to increasing heavy weather events, home owner insurance is harder or even impossible to obtain. Without HOI, you won’t get a mortgage, because that would mean the bank partially enters into that risk. No mortgage means a lot of people cannnot afford to own a house or flat.
- throw0101d 1y ago
  > I would think insurance would be among the least of worries? Canary in the coal mine: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_species
lazyasciiart 1y ago
“If”?

pixxel 1y ago

[dead]