"Plenty of companies, indeed entire industries, base their business model on being evil. The insurance business, for instance, depends on the fact that insurers charge customers more than their insurance is worth; that’s fair enough, since if they didn’t do that they wouldn’t be viable as businesses.“ Surely not even Corbyn believes that it is inherently evil for a business to be designed to make a profit?
On the broader point it is frightening how much the internet knows about one. I contemplate from time to time seriously anonymising my browsing, but I don't, not just because I am lazy but also because I worry that if you do it thoroughly enough to be worthwhile, you create a presumption that you have something seriously dodgy to hide.
lol
Yeah, I disagree with the characterization of the entire insurance industry as "evil." He's right in that basically all insurance is -EV (ie, statistically it's a rip off) but that doesn't make it evil.
There are shades of evil, depending on how -EV it is.
Personally, I'd like to force every insurance policy to state what their risk model indicates the actual EV/profit is. Ie, "you're paying £50/mo, we expect to pay out £23"
Insurance works because people are prepared to pay a small amount to avoid a catastrophic loss even if the probability of the loss times the magnitude of the loss is less than the small premium. It is perfectly rational behaviour. It is described by utility theory in insurance.
An insurance company's utility curve is linear up to very large amounts (because it has a deep pocket and runs a portfolio of risks). An individual's utility curve is non-linear even at relatively small amounts.
If you were offered 7 to 1 on rolling a six, you'd probably take it for £1 or £10 or possibly £1,000 but not for £100k or £1m. You can test where your utility curve bends by these simple thought experiments. It depends on your wealth and attitude to risk.
I never insure against small losses e.g. a bicycle or phone. I never claim for small amounts and I always take the largest excess because my utility curve is as linear as the insurance companies for small amounts and I don't want to be ripped off. But I do insure against medical expenses or 3rd party injury when I go skiing.
May be being daft, but what WAS the embargoed story?
Actually I was trying to work out what the embargoed story was? I'm thinking Apple and Google?
Me too! Surely the EU has been trying to tax them for a while....That there is a hurricane has been well publicised...likewise D Beckham spends money...Is it T May discovering young people vote???
Won't happen for all the same reasons that the Border Adjustment Tax was canned in the US: it's too complicated, it encourages non-economic behaviour, and it would result in tit-for-tat responses, which would stuff exporting countries such as (ooohhhh...) Germany.
Won't happen for all the same reasons that the Border Adjustment Tax was canned in the US: it's too complicated, it encourages non-economic behaviour, and it would result in tit-for-tat responses, which would stuff exporting countries such as (ooohhhh...) Germany.
Seems unlikely to result in much. However, "countries look for extra tax revenue" is hardly big news. Especially when they have our contribution to fill. Colour me underwhelmed.
Won't happen for all the same reasons that the Border Adjustment Tax was canned in the US: it's too complicated, it encourages non-economic behaviour, and it would result in tit-for-tat responses, which would stuff exporting countries such as (ooohhhh...) Germany.
Seems unlikely to result in much. However, "countries look for extra tax revenue" is hardly big news. Especially when they have our contribution to fill. Colour me underwhelmed.
We've got enough meds for 3 months, enough food and perishables for a few months, a wind up radio, a portable stove, lots of matches in an airtight, waterpoof bag, among other things.
From what I saw in Sarajevo and Basra and from reading The Road, none of that matters. The only preparation that increases your chances of survival are being part of a larger group. You can have as many tins of beans as you want but, if you're on your own, you die.
Won't happen for all the same reasons that the Border Adjustment Tax was canned in the US: it's too complicated, it encourages non-economic behaviour, and it would result in tit-for-tat responses, which would stuff exporting countries such as (ooohhhh...) Germany.
Seems unlikely to result in much. However, "countries look for extra tax revenue" is hardly big news. Especially when they have our contribution to fill. Colour me underwhelmed.
"The insurance business, for instance, depends on the fact that insurers charge customers more than their insurance is worth; that’s fair enough, since if they didn’t do that they wouldn’t be viable as businesses. What isn’t fair is the panoply of cynical techniques that many insurers use to avoid, as far as possible, paying out when the insured-against event happens. Just ask anyone who has had a property suffer a major mishap"
Two people come together and swap something, each gaining in the process. The insured gets rid of an unquantified and possibly too-large risk and gains a much-smaller capped risk and peace of mind regarding the future risk. The insurer can pack the cumulative too-large risks into one big lump and use statistical and financial tools to make a profit, handling the big risk cumulatively in a way that the insureds cannot handle the original risks individually. *Both* parties benefit more than they lose and life is a lot better than it would otherwise be for both
As for "ask anyone who has had a property suffer a major mishap", WELL YES LET'S DO THAT SHALL WE? Thousands of people lose their house thru fire or flood each year. Ditto the people who lose their ability to work via health problems or injury. Absolutely catastrophic life problems can be and are ameliorated thru insurance.
That is for the people to decide, at the last general election the LDs were resoundingly defeated after pushing for a second vote
The general election came too soon - which was why Mrs May wanted one, of course. The time for another referendum is when we know the final details of the negotiations. Still a long way into the future, with this gang of incompetents in charge.
So that line will not wash, Mr HYUFD. Must try harder with your spinning.
That is for the people to decide, at the last general election the LDs were resoundingly defeated after pushing for a second vote
The general election came too soon - which was why Mrs May wanted one, of course. The time for another referendum is when we know the final details of the negotiations. Still a long way into the future, with this gang of incompetents in charge.
So that line will not wash, Mr HYUFD. Must try harder with your spinning.
also worth noting is that we LDs gained seats, and came very close to going others. May lost her majority in part because of this. I would have liked more, but last election waa not a "resounding defeat" for the LDs.
That is for the people to decide, at the last general election the LDs were resoundingly defeated after pushing for a second vote
The general election came too soon - which was why Mrs May wanted one, of course. The time for another referendum is when we know the final details of the negotiations. Still a long way into the future, with this gang of incompetents in charge.
So that line will not wash, Mr HYUFD. Must try harder with your spinning.
also worth noting is that we LDs gained seats, and came very close to going others. May lost her majority in part because of this. I would have liked more, but last election waa not a "resounding defeat" for the LDs.
As the only anti-Brexit party they did get resoundingly defeated.
That is for the people to decide, at the last general election the LDs were resoundingly defeated after pushing for a second vote
The general election came too soon - which was why Mrs May wanted one, of course. The time for another referendum is when we know the final details of the negotiations. Still a long way into the future, with this gang of incompetents in charge.
So that line will not wash, Mr HYUFD. Must try harder with your spinning.
also worth noting is that we LDs gained seats, and came very close to going others. May lost her majority in part because of this. I would have liked more, but last election waa not a "resounding defeat" for the LDs.
As the only anti-Brexit party they did get resoundingly defeated.
No no no. All that matters is if you gain or lose seats. Hasn't TSE taught you anything?
That is for the people to decide, at the last general election the LDs were resoundingly defeated after pushing for a second vote
The general election came too soon - which was why Mrs May wanted one, of course. The time for another referendum is when we know the final details of the negotiations. Still a long way into the future, with this gang of incompetents in charge.
So that line will not wash, Mr HYUFD. Must try harder with your spinning.
also worth noting is that we LDs gained seats, and came very close to going others. May lost her majority in part because of this. I would have liked more, but last election waa not a "resounding defeat" for the LDs.
As the only anti-Brexit party they did get resoundingly defeated.
The Tories lost their majority because they lost seats to the LDs and because they lost seats to Labour. In part the latter was because of kippers breaking more for Labour than Tories expected, but the biggist swings to Labour were by Remainders in the South.
This wasn't just a Brexit election, and indeed the election mostly was on other issues, but the influence of Brexit motivated voting favoured the anti-Tory vote. In large part people either favoured the LD position or wanted a less xenophobic Brexit in the Labour style.
Which is why we have a zombie government, to get back to topic...
That is for the people to decide, at the last general election the LDs were resoundingly defeated after pushing for a second vote
The general election came too soon - which was why Mrs May wanted one, of course. The time for another referendum is when we know the final details of the negotiations. Still a long way into the future, with this gang of incompetents in charge.
So that line will not wash, Mr HYUFD. Must try harder with your spinning.
also worth noting is that we LDs gained seats, and came very close to going others. May lost her majority in part because of this. I would have liked more, but last election waa not a "resounding defeat" for the LDs.
As the only anti-Brexit party they did get resoundingly defeated.
The Tories lost their majority because they lost seats to the LDs and because they lost seats to Labour. In part the latter was because of kippers breaking more for Labour than Tories expected, but the biggist swings to Labour were by Remainders in the South.
This wasn't just a Brexit election, and indeed the election mostly was on other issues, but the influence of Brexit motivated voting favoured the anti-Tory vote. In large part people either favoured the LD position or wanted a less xenophobic Brexit in the Labour style.
Which is why we have a zombie government, to get back to topic...
Shame the LDs couldn't grab any more of those remainer votes.. given they were the de facto party of remain.
That is for the people to decide, at the last general election the LDs were resoundingly defeated after pushing for a second vote
The general election came too soon - which was why Mrs May wanted one, of course. The time for another referendum is when we know the final details of the negotiations. Still a long way into the future, with this gang of incompetents in charge.
So that line will not wash, Mr HYUFD. Must try harder with your spinning.
also worth noting is that we LDs gained seats, and came very close to going others. May lost her majority in part because of this. I would have liked more, but last election waa not a "resounding defeat" for the LDs.
As the only anti-Brexit party they did get resoundingly defeated.
The Tories lost their majority because they lost seats to the LDs and because they lost seats to Labour. In part the latter was because of kippers breaking more for Labour than Tories expected, but the biggist swings to Labour were by Remainders in the South.
This wasn't just a Brexit election, and indeed the election mostly was on other issues, but the influence of Brexit motivated voting favoured the anti-Tory vote. In large part people either favoured the LD position or wanted a less xenophobic Brexit in the Labour style.
Which is why we have a zombie government, to get back to topic...
Shame the LDs couldn't grab any more of those remainer votes.. given they were the de facto party of remain.
Yes, it was a shame. If we had picked a few more votes from the Tories in key seats then we could have prevented a Tory government. This could either be by direct gains, or by influencing the Lab/Tory split. I have every confidence that we will do so at the next election. This government has the lifespan (!) of a zombie wandering in a minefield.
The LD's were massively damaged by being in government, as this had to crystallise beliefs into actions, thereby offending one wing of the party and losing it. I think Brexit will have the same effect on the Tories. Brexit too can no longer be all things to all people. It has to crystallise.
Either pro free market libertarians, or voters with protectivist thinking will be disappointed. Indeed most likely both will be find the outcome not what they wanted. Brexit Britain will not turn us into Singapore, nor deliver for the fed up voters in South Wales, South West, or the East coast.
That is for the people to decide, at the last general election the LDs were resoundingly defeated after pushing for a second vote
The general election came too soon - which was why Mrs May wanted one, of course. The time for another referendum is when we know the final details of the negotiations. Still a long way into the future, with this gang of incompetents in charge.
So that line will not wash, Mr HYUFD. Must try harder with your spinning.
also worth noting is that we LDs gained seats, and came very close to going others. May lost her majority in part because of this. I would have liked more, but last election waa not a "resounding defeat" for the LDs.
The LDs actually managed to lose voteshare on 2015
Comments
(Of course it helps to have a few hundred million in the bank first as he does)
An insurance company's utility curve is linear up to very large amounts (because it has a deep pocket and runs a portfolio of risks). An individual's utility curve is non-linear even at relatively small amounts.
If you were offered 7 to 1 on rolling a six, you'd probably take it for £1 or £10 or possibly £1,000 but not for £100k or £1m. You can test where your utility curve bends by these simple thought experiments. It depends on your wealth and attitude to risk.
I never insure against small losses e.g. a bicycle or phone. I never claim for small amounts and I always take the largest excess because my utility curve is as linear as the insurance companies for small amounts and I don't want to be ripped off. But I do insure against medical expenses or 3rd party injury when I go skiing.
https://www.ft.com/content/266e996a-948f-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0
https://twitter.com/FT/status/906293454656983040
(my personal interest is obvious here, btw)
"The insurance business, for instance, depends on the fact that insurers charge customers more than their insurance is worth; that’s fair enough, since if they didn’t do that they wouldn’t be viable as businesses. What isn’t fair is the panoply of cynical techniques that many insurers use to avoid, as far as possible, paying out when the insured-against event happens. Just ask anyone who has had a property suffer a major mishap"
Two people come together and swap something, each gaining in the process. The insured gets rid of an unquantified and possibly too-large risk and gains a much-smaller capped risk and peace of mind regarding the future risk. The insurer can pack the cumulative too-large risks into one big lump and use statistical and financial tools to make a profit, handling the big risk cumulatively in a way that the insureds cannot handle the original risks individually. *Both* parties benefit more than they lose and life is a lot better than it would otherwise be for both
As for "ask anyone who has had a property suffer a major mishap", WELL YES LET'S DO THAT SHALL WE? Thousands of people lose their house thru fire or flood each year. Ditto the people who lose their ability to work via health problems or injury. Absolutely catastrophic life problems can be and are ameliorated thru insurance.
So that line will not wash, Mr HYUFD. Must try harder with your spinning.
This wasn't just a Brexit election, and indeed the election mostly was on other issues, but the influence of Brexit motivated voting favoured the anti-Tory vote. In large part people either favoured the LD position or wanted a less xenophobic Brexit in the Labour style.
Which is why we have a zombie government, to get back to topic...
The LD's were massively damaged by being in government, as this had to crystallise beliefs into actions, thereby offending one wing of the party and losing it. I think Brexit will have the same effect on the Tories. Brexit too can no longer be all things to all people. It has to crystallise.
Either pro free market libertarians, or voters with protectivist thinking will be disappointed. Indeed most likely both will be find the outcome not what they wanted. Brexit Britain will not turn us into Singapore, nor deliver for the fed up voters in South Wales, South West, or the East coast.