5 ms·

We're clearly having different views on society. Yours seems through a strict financial lens, but correct me if I'm wrong. > potentially huge if you do. No, i

by tgv 1y ago

We're clearly having different views on society. Yours seems through a strict financial lens, but correct me if I'm wrong. > potentially huge if you do. No, it isn't. You've just incurred a (probably larger) loss, elsewhere. There's no pay-off. Insurance makes large losses bearable for the individual and society. That's unlike gambling.

dpark 1y ago
“I bet you $500 a month I’ll get cancer.” Insurance absolutely has a societal benefit. It is also absolutely gambling.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  If you made this bet, then got cancer, would you say "hooray, I'm rich!"?
  - dpark 1y ago
    No. But not the definition of gambling. Insurance is hedging. Aka hedging your bets.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      Appeal to definitions is rarely useful in such discussions. Insurance is not a central member of the category, since people rarely get addicted to filing insurance paperwork, but people very much do get addicted to sports betting.
      - dpark 1y ago
        “Is insurance gambling” is a question of definition. You’re trying to argue that it’s not gambling because it’s beneficial. But that’s absurd because you’re trying to define gambling as specifically “bad” in a conversation of whether gambling is bad. You can’t argue circularly and then gripe about clarifying definitions.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        No, nobody's trying to argue that gambling is by definition bad – that is to say, nobody's defining the category boundaries of "gambling" contingent on possessing the property "is bad". Some people have constrained the definition of "gambling" such that it only contains things they view as bad, and then observed that all the things they consider "gambling" are bad, but that's not the vacuous, circular claim you make it out to be. In lieu of re-quoting other parts of the thread, I'll instead ask you to please re-read the arguments people have made, more slowly.
        dpark 1y ago
        Reread your own message. > Some people have constrained the definition of "gambling" such that it only contains things they view as bad If there is some internally consistent definition that excludes all the “good” stuff without excluding it specifically for being good, no one has shared that so far as I’ve seen. The arguments about insurance so far have been “but it’s a good thing” and “you aren’t happy when your insurance pays out”. The former is exactly gambling==bad and the latter is just wrong. I could bet that a politician I despise will win and I won’t necessarily be happy that I won. I’ll be more happy that I got a payout than not, exactly the same as insurance. That’s what a hedge is.
        dse1982 1y ago
        Insurances are not hedges. Hedges are „investment position[s] intended to offset potential losses or gains that may be incurred by a companion investment“ (wikipedia) of which insurances can be a part of, while in an insurance „a party agrees to compensate another party in the event of a certain loss, damage, or injury“ (wikipedia). Absolutely not the same thing. But even so there is still an interesting insight to be gained from common parlance: Usually we talk of a bet in a situation where you take an event that is somewhat out of your control and irrelevant for your wellbeing and intentionally and actively make some kind of material outcome for yourself depend on it. In so far speculation at stock markets is „gambly“, you are right about that. And if you have measures in place that hedge the risks of those speculations you might be tempted to very loosely call those your insurance. If you look however at how the term insurance is typically used you can see a difference there: you insure against risks that are non-avoidable risks of your daily life or business. You do not intentionally and actively enter the cancer-lottery. And you do not actively take measures to win your „health-insurance-bet“ because the outcome is still considered catastrophic, even in case of „winning“ it. And the way people tend to see things more as insurance vs. bets follows exactly these lines: is it about mitigating a devastating natural risk that is hard or impossible to avoid 100% or is it about something where you actively and intentionally attach your wellbeing to a random event. (We could separate this out in two questions: do you involve yourself actively and intentionally; and: is the outcome that you bet on inherently against your intrinsic interests. But that is a detail that I don‘t think we need to go into) I think this explains the common parlance quite well: health-insurance: the risk is unavoidable, you do not willfully enter some kind of cancer-lottery on whose outcome you bet. Also you have an intrinsic interest in not „winning“ said „cancer-lottery“. -> no doubt it is insurance. Legal expenses insurance: risks depend largely on your behaviour but you usually still have an intrinsic interest not having to use it. -> some people might see this as more gambling- or “bet-“ adjacent. Speculating on one stock and hedging that bet. -> Totally not an insurance. Also not something insurances do. An insurance might be part of your hedge (maybe insurance of freight against loss) but insurers typically do not insure bets. Which makes sense, since part of their business-model is that the customer has an intrinsic interest that the payout case does not occur.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- koolba 1y ago
  The words for this are hedging and speculation vs gambling.
  - dpark 1y ago
    Amusingly speculation is generally classified differently from investment in that speculation is considered gambling. Hedging is a strategy for reducing risk in gambling (or investment).
- DengistKhan 1y ago
  When you walk across the street, you're taking a gamble that a large bear isn't going to come out of nowhere and attack you, for the huge prize payout of safely reaching the other side. Therefore, other things like dog walking and long strolls by the beach are also gambling.

by tgv 1y ago

dpark 1y ago

“I bet you $500 a month I’ll get cancer.” Insurance absolutely has a societal benefit. It is also absolutely gambling.

wizzwizz4 1y ago
If you made this bet, then got cancer, would you say "hooray, I'm rich!"?
- dpark 1y ago
  No. But not the definition of gambling. Insurance is hedging. Aka hedging your bets.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    Appeal to definitions is rarely useful in such discussions. Insurance is not a central member of the category, since people rarely get addicted to filing insurance paperwork, but people very much do get addicted to sports betting.
    - dpark 1y ago
      “Is insurance gambling” is a question of definition. You’re trying to argue that it’s not gambling because it’s beneficial. But that’s absurd because you’re trying to define gambling as specifically “bad” in a conversation of whether gambling is bad. You can’t argue circularly and then gripe about clarifying definitions.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        No, nobody's trying to argue that gambling is by definition bad – that is to say, nobody's defining the category boundaries of "gambling" contingent on possessing the property "is bad". Some people have constrained the definition of "gambling" such that it only contains things they view as bad, and then observed that all the things they consider "gambling" are bad, but that's not the vacuous, circular claim you make it out to be. In lieu of re-quoting other parts of the thread, I'll instead ask you to please re-read the arguments people have made, more slowly.
        dpark 1y ago
        Reread your own message. > Some people have constrained the definition of "gambling" such that it only contains things they view as bad If there is some internally consistent definition that excludes all the “good” stuff without excluding it specifically for being good, no one has shared that so far as I’ve seen. The arguments about insurance so far have been “but it’s a good thing” and “you aren’t happy when your insurance pays out”. The former is exactly gambling==bad and the latter is just wrong. I could bet that a politician I despise will win and I won’t necessarily be happy that I won. I’ll be more happy that I got a payout than not, exactly the same as insurance. That’s what a hedge is.
        dse1982 1y ago
        Insurances are not hedges. Hedges are „investment position[s] intended to offset potential losses or gains that may be incurred by a companion investment“ (wikipedia) of which insurances can be a part of, while in an insurance „a party agrees to compensate another party in the event of a certain loss, damage, or injury“ (wikipedia). Absolutely not the same thing. But even so there is still an interesting insight to be gained from common parlance: Usually we talk of a bet in a situation where you take an event that is somewhat out of your control and irrelevant for your wellbeing and intentionally and actively make some kind of material outcome for yourself depend on it. In so far speculation at stock markets is „gambly“, you are right about that. And if you have measures in place that hedge the risks of those speculations you might be tempted to very loosely call those your insurance. If you look however at how the term insurance is typically used you can see a difference there: you insure against risks that are non-avoidable risks of your daily life or business. You do not intentionally and actively enter the cancer-lottery. And you do not actively take measures to win your „health-insurance-bet“ because the outcome is still considered catastrophic, even in case of „winning“ it. And the way people tend to see things more as insurance vs. bets follows exactly these lines: is it about mitigating a devastating natural risk that is hard or impossible to avoid 100% or is it about something where you actively and intentionally attach your wellbeing to a random event. (We could separate this out in two questions: do you involve yourself actively and intentionally; and: is the outcome that you bet on inherently against your intrinsic interests. But that is a detail that I don‘t think we need to go into) I think this explains the common parlance quite well: health-insurance: the risk is unavoidable, you do not willfully enter some kind of cancer-lottery on whose outcome you bet. Also you have an intrinsic interest in not „winning“ said „cancer-lottery“. -> no doubt it is insurance. Legal expenses insurance: risks depend largely on your behaviour but you usually still have an intrinsic interest not having to use it. -> some people might see this as more gambling- or “bet-“ adjacent. Speculating on one stock and hedging that bet. -> Totally not an insurance. Also not something insurances do. An insurance might be part of your hedge (maybe insurance of freight against loss) but insurers typically do not insure bets. Which makes sense, since part of their business-model is that the customer has an intrinsic interest that the payout case does not occur.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
koolba 1y ago
The words for this are hedging and speculation vs gambling.
- dpark 1y ago
  Amusingly speculation is generally classified differently from investment in that speculation is considered gambling. Hedging is a strategy for reducing risk in gambling (or investment).
DengistKhan 1y ago
When you walk across the street, you're taking a gamble that a large bear isn't going to come out of nowhere and attack you, for the huge prize payout of safely reaching the other side. Therefore, other things like dog walking and long strolls by the beach are also gambling.