Just retired from a major national insurer, and yippy skippy do they know what’s going on.
But I would wager that 60-70% of the folks who work there voted for Trump and his “climate change is a hoax” policies.
Insurers should be screaming from the rooftops and demanding change. Notwithstanding the immense personal tragedies these climate-fueled disasters represent, they are a grave threat to the very existence of insurance companies.
This should not be a partisan matter (yeah, I know, I know). Climate-driven disasters hit red states (hello, Florida) and blue.
Instead, the professional grievance crew is screaming about lesbians. (I’m with Sarah: We need more lesbians to run things. Charlie Kirk’s straight white boys haven’t proven capable over time.)
Starting to wish Canada would annex the states that touch the Pacific, I truly am.
I know oil companies have data on climate change which they keep hidden for obvious reasons, as do insurance companies and I find it odd that the latter hasn’t gone after the former for funds to mitigate these disasters. Even the US Military views climate change as a national security threat!
Never heard of "yippy skippy" before -- I had to google it -- a very miscellaneous cluster of references, including a muppet and folk songs -- but I take it you mean a mental state of intentionally self-induced non-compos insouciance and unreasoning exhiliraton?
If you do it reminds me of all the financial bubbles I recall -- the deregulation of banking in the eighties, the tech bubbles of the 90's, the incredibly obvious real estate bubble and the 2008 crash, and of course bitcoin mania... and all the others before my time -- the tulips, the South Sea, the roaring 20's... all of which entailed an infectious, metastatic, self-induced intentional blindness to the inevitable. Once ignited, it can become a self-amplifying firestorm. Because the inevitable comes tomorrow, while today the ground is strewn with loose treasure. Those who rush out to scoop up as much of it as they can right now become the canny ones, and those who hold back begin to question their own caution. The longer it goes on the more it seems that this time it really might be different. And in any case, until it finally does stop being different, only those who benefit are those who discount the long run down to zero.
The problem with insurance is that it combines a present assured stream of sure wealth transfer to the underwriters., while the only certain thing about the future is it hasn't happened yet and might not happen for an indefinitely long time.
You would think, if as Johnny von Neumann et al posited, homo economicus really exists -- a rational actor driven by mathematically predictable self-interest looks at the game in the short run and the game in the long run. These are very different games. The payoff for six-chamber Russian roullette is zero for six trials, but can be positive for one. And if you know that eventually you are going to be shot anyway...
Also -- reinsurance both reduces and intensifies risk. Once you can buy risk short term and sell it off long term, while collecting revenue from each transaction, the business changes. The real estate frenzy of the mid 2000's became a firestorm because it changed-- from originating loans in order to own the loan, to generate transaction fees by originating loans and selling the loan to someone else as quickly as possible. In other words, a sort of sales commission business.
Insurance is different of course from mortgage origination but it's perhaps a bit the same.
If you can get someone else to re-insure what you have insured you are in a position to leverage your premium income stream. And if there is one eternal truth about finance -- when times are good, the rewards of leverage are irresistable.
"self-induced non-compos insouciance and unreasoning exhiliraton" - I had to read that one closely. It would help the reader to put a comma between the two adjectives but I got it. It's apt.
Thank you for mentioning the tulips, capitalism's first asset bubble.
The reason the USA is a republic is because it was understood that "the public" would never have the technical and legal education to legislate properly.
It is literally the JOB of the legislature to educate themselves on these issues so that they can address them, and to inform the public about why they hold the perspectives they do.
The fact that we've been electing a lot of the loudest stupidest people the USA can produce may be the fault of the voters, but the fact that those loud stupid people refuse to do the jobs they were hired to do is not. All the voters can do is vote them out of power, but they can NEVER hope to understand the issues involved when all the real work goes on behind closed doors and the "professionals" refuse to share the relevant information with the public.
I agree with you completely. I was taught that we elect legislators to do the research and base their decisions on what best serves the interests of their constituents. They are supposed to DO something; explain their decision making and educate the voters in the process.
When the commenter says "But I would wager that 60-70% of the folks who work there voted for Trump and his “climate change is a hoax” policies." at an insurance company, I think letting the voters off the hook is a cop out. These electeds are being elected because they are anti-expertise, and their voters like it.
JVL, you are on a roll this week. Sarah is, too.
Just retired from a major national insurer, and yippy skippy do they know what’s going on.
But I would wager that 60-70% of the folks who work there voted for Trump and his “climate change is a hoax” policies.
Insurers should be screaming from the rooftops and demanding change. Notwithstanding the immense personal tragedies these climate-fueled disasters represent, they are a grave threat to the very existence of insurance companies.
This should not be a partisan matter (yeah, I know, I know). Climate-driven disasters hit red states (hello, Florida) and blue.
Instead, the professional grievance crew is screaming about lesbians. (I’m with Sarah: We need more lesbians to run things. Charlie Kirk’s straight white boys haven’t proven capable over time.)
Starting to wish Canada would annex the states that touch the Pacific, I truly am.
I know oil companies have data on climate change which they keep hidden for obvious reasons, as do insurance companies and I find it odd that the latter hasn’t gone after the former for funds to mitigate these disasters. Even the US Military views climate change as a national security threat!
Never heard of "yippy skippy" before -- I had to google it -- a very miscellaneous cluster of references, including a muppet and folk songs -- but I take it you mean a mental state of intentionally self-induced non-compos insouciance and unreasoning exhiliraton?
If you do it reminds me of all the financial bubbles I recall -- the deregulation of banking in the eighties, the tech bubbles of the 90's, the incredibly obvious real estate bubble and the 2008 crash, and of course bitcoin mania... and all the others before my time -- the tulips, the South Sea, the roaring 20's... all of which entailed an infectious, metastatic, self-induced intentional blindness to the inevitable. Once ignited, it can become a self-amplifying firestorm. Because the inevitable comes tomorrow, while today the ground is strewn with loose treasure. Those who rush out to scoop up as much of it as they can right now become the canny ones, and those who hold back begin to question their own caution. The longer it goes on the more it seems that this time it really might be different. And in any case, until it finally does stop being different, only those who benefit are those who discount the long run down to zero.
The problem with insurance is that it combines a present assured stream of sure wealth transfer to the underwriters., while the only certain thing about the future is it hasn't happened yet and might not happen for an indefinitely long time.
You would think, if as Johnny von Neumann et al posited, homo economicus really exists -- a rational actor driven by mathematically predictable self-interest looks at the game in the short run and the game in the long run. These are very different games. The payoff for six-chamber Russian roullette is zero for six trials, but can be positive for one. And if you know that eventually you are going to be shot anyway...
Also -- reinsurance both reduces and intensifies risk. Once you can buy risk short term and sell it off long term, while collecting revenue from each transaction, the business changes. The real estate frenzy of the mid 2000's became a firestorm because it changed-- from originating loans in order to own the loan, to generate transaction fees by originating loans and selling the loan to someone else as quickly as possible. In other words, a sort of sales commission business.
Insurance is different of course from mortgage origination but it's perhaps a bit the same.
If you can get someone else to re-insure what you have insured you are in a position to leverage your premium income stream. And if there is one eternal truth about finance -- when times are good, the rewards of leverage are irresistable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Games_and_Economic_Behavior
"self-induced non-compos insouciance and unreasoning exhiliraton" - I had to read that one closely. It would help the reader to put a comma between the two adjectives but I got it. It's apt.
Thank you for mentioning the tulips, capitalism's first asset bubble.
If Canada annexes them, I'm moving back west.
Count us in please ! :o)
I'm in one of those states. I'm open to your proposal.
Me too
As always, the root of the problem is the voters.
No, that's a cop-out.
The reason the USA is a republic is because it was understood that "the public" would never have the technical and legal education to legislate properly.
It is literally the JOB of the legislature to educate themselves on these issues so that they can address them, and to inform the public about why they hold the perspectives they do.
The fact that we've been electing a lot of the loudest stupidest people the USA can produce may be the fault of the voters, but the fact that those loud stupid people refuse to do the jobs they were hired to do is not. All the voters can do is vote them out of power, but they can NEVER hope to understand the issues involved when all the real work goes on behind closed doors and the "professionals" refuse to share the relevant information with the public.
I agree with you completely. I was taught that we elect legislators to do the research and base their decisions on what best serves the interests of their constituents. They are supposed to DO something; explain their decision making and educate the voters in the process.
When the commenter says "But I would wager that 60-70% of the folks who work there voted for Trump and his “climate change is a hoax” policies." at an insurance company, I think letting the voters off the hook is a cop out. These electeds are being elected because they are anti-expertise, and their voters like it.
Agree Trump supporters are anti-expertise. Experts are for sissies.