[sicp-enjoyer]

Well any kind of nuance or perspective.

Here is one thing to consider. A pension trades returns for stability. People pick a pension as their form of retirement because they have a lower risk tolerance. Anytime these tradeoffs are happening you are going to see wealthy people who took the risk side and came out ahead.

Did you know your insurance company is getting rich off your premiums? Are you going to stop paying them and get out of this "greedy" arrangement that takes from poor you to rich them?

Obviously my comment isn't the full picture either. These institutions often have moral hazard, etc.

[xtracto]

> Did you know your insurance company is getting rich off your premiums? Are you going to stop paying them and get out of this "greedy" arrangement that takes from poor you to rich them?

You chose the worst example possible. For profit insurance is a scam, as the insurance company ultimate goal is to pay the minimum amount possible for claims, even after people have diligently paid very expensive premiums. It is one of the most rigged system, which amazingly is culturaly acceptable. (I am sure it is going to go the way of the "private firefighters" in the future).

[sicp-enjoyer]

Do you use insurance?

Here is an example of exchanging risk voluntarily that I don't fits your comment. Farmers will often make deals to sell their goods for a fixed amount before planting. The other side of that deal is a futures contract where investors speculate on commodity value. The farmers accept lower returns while the investors may get fabulously wealthy. Are the farmers being scammed?

[cmeacham98]

If pensions trade risk for stability, then why does this article exist?

[lazide]

Because some of the pension managers apparently decided doing what they were supposed to be doing was boring.

[sicp-enjoyer]

The stability is for the person who receives the pension and has a contract that guarantees them payments.

[landemva]

Most insurance companies are highly regulated so they will pay claims.

[socialismisok]

My insurance company should be, imo, unable to get rich off me. Insurance should be nationalized, imo.

But it's the only game in town. I'm a socialist, but until there's a world where we're all taking care of each other and running worker co-ops, I'm going to have to operate in the existing structures.

[tpxl]

> My insurance company should be, imo, unable to get rich off me.

Where I live, there's a cap on the profits from insurance. I've gotten letters a few times saying due to high profits, the premium for the last month of the year was going to be lower.

That doesn't prevent them from running other scams like 10 year 'insurance savings' with 1% total yield, but those are optional.

[gorgoiler]

How do mutualised institutions — building societies, credit unions, profit sharing with employees — fit into your world view? Are there credit unions that offer insurance products, or is it too risky lumping peoples savings with a risk-forward product like insurance?

[socialismisok]

Generally I'd prefer them over capitalized institutions. At least the people who are making things work are seeing direct positive results.

In some cases (eg health insurance) I believe a single large national pool is preferable.

Should credit unions offer insurance... I am not sure. I think it's reasonable if that's what the credit union members want, but they'd need to be very careful about the policies they were issuing and the potential payouts.