|
|
|
|
|
by roenxi
1743 days ago
|
|
I'm staunchly anti-insurance in most cases, as once someone is making a profit it can't be a positive-expected-value deal. But that angle seems to have been covered already so just to be different - insurers also have the strongest incentives in the market to make sure risks don't play out. There is nobody with more at stake in the event of a bad flood or other disaster. The incentive structures around insurance (in a free market, though) are actually really healthy. It is probably the strongest argument against insurance being a racket short of not-for-profits. It is fun to imagine a big US insurance cartel acting as the counterbalance to Big (Insert Industry Here) in a city planning meeting because they are worried about the risks. |
|
This is usually because insurance hedges against tail risks that wipe out the individual, and in these cases utility is a nonlinear function of dollars.
Most people would rather pay 1% of their net worth to deterministically avoid a 1/100 chance of losing their entire net worth.
Because insurers pool risk, it ends up being simultaneously rational for the individual to carry insurance and profitable for the insurer to write insurance policies.
Investments are a similar kind of risk pooling, but for upsides. You would not gamble your entire net worth on a prospect with uncertain profitability, but a large number of investors each risking a small fraction of their wealth make it possible to raise capital for risky but possibly valuable projects.