←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
476 points spking | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.445s | source
Show context
danielmarkbruce ◴[] No.42734398[source]
This is silly, and overcomplicating the issue. The world is very insurable, at a price. The property and casualty business is competitive as hell in almost all parts.

The government needs to just stay out of it.

replies(2): >>42734471 #>>42735966 #
thrance ◴[] No.42735966[source]
When the cost of premium surpasses what people are able to pay, companies will just leave. That's the point of the article, you can only ignore material reality for so long.
replies(1): >>42738617 #
danielmarkbruce ◴[] No.42738617[source]
The companies are leaving because of mandated price caps from the government. In every other market when cost > price and they can't control cost, companies increase price.

You can only ignore the reality of government interference in the insurance market for so long.

replies(1): >>42739870 #
thrance ◴[] No.42739870[source]
I meant that at some point, with ever more costly and numerous disasters, the premium insurance companies would have to charge to be able to properly insure their clients would be too much for said clients to stomach, which would prevent anyone from getting anything insured. This has nothing to do with government interference. At some point the equation simply doesn't work anymore.
replies(1): >>42741800 #
danielmarkbruce ◴[] No.42741800[source]
It still won't cause that. People will own less expensive things if the all in cost of owning them goes up. This is econ 101. People buy cheaper houses when interest rates go up and vice versa.
replies(1): >>42743216 #
1. RevEng ◴[] No.42743216[source]
Tell that to people who can't even afford rent. Some goods are inelastic because people need them at any price. Housing prices are good example of that. This is also econ 101.
replies(1): >>42744121 #
2. danielmarkbruce ◴[] No.42744121[source]
Take econ 101 again. "some goods are inelastic" isn't even a coherent sentence. You are out of your depth.