bogbrush Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Saying that I don't mind democratic governments coming up with a few rules that govern civilised behaviour is no more subjective than saying that everything should be operated by market forces. You have no special claim to objectivity either. That's like saying an atheist is a person of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Saying that I don't mind democratic governments coming up with a few rules that govern civilised behaviour is no more subjective than saying that everything should be operated by market forces. You have no special claim to objectivity either. Market forces are objective rules, found using a methodology. Democratic governments are angry babies chucking threats around based on whim and anxiety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 I Invoke Godwins rule. But seriously, (1) you are perhaps a little extreme comparing somebody who wants some society ground rules to hitler (2) whether the current system works well, or not, you did not say what your 'solution' to them should be. Lynch mobs, presumeably? All I mean is that the minute we call for rules based on our own value system, we're doing the dictator thing but sounding reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 All I mean is that the minute we call for rules based on our own value system, we're doing the dictator thing but sounding reasonable. A bit like telling everybody that market forces should govern everything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingWithTheInlaws Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Could say that about everything. Publicans should be free to refuse to serve black men - they can always choose to drink somewhere else. Male bosses should be free to make sexist comments about female employees - they can always choose to work somewhere else. B&B owners should be free to refuse accommodation to gay couples - they can always choose to stay somewhere else. Or maybe a civilised society should make it a general principle that you cannot hold an accident of birth against somebody and (when necessary) enforce rules to that effect. This is not about the insurance companies refusing to serve someone and you can't compare the situation to someone being directly offensive. It's about them setting a market rate price appropriate to an individual's circumstances. You may be upset that those may include attributes that you are born with, but you can't argue with the stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 A bit like telling everybody that market forces should govern everything? Market forces are when you get told no and accept it with good grace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Market forces are when you get told no and accept it with good grace. I understand your value system. I'm just telling you that it's a value system same as all the others. You might prefer it, but not everybody shares your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I understand your value system. I'm just telling you that it's a value system same as all the others. You might prefer it, but not everybody shares your opinion. No, it's not a value system. It's a description of behaviour in reality. A value judgement would be to say that market forces are amqazing, the best thing ever. To simply describe them as the realm in whch when you are told no you accept it with good grace is a factual description of how a free market operates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catsick Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Really? There’s Sheila’s Wheels, and companies like Saga catering for the over 55s still up and running. Where’s the alternative for the under 25s? There isn't any, which kind of suggests the market is 100% prejudiced. Or it suggests that unlike saga, an insurance company dealing with cheap insurance for nutters under 25 would be out of business in no time .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Club 18-30? Strange it isn't 18-25 no? Maybe it was risk that determined the threshold....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) This is not about the insurance companies refusing to serve someone and you can't compare the situation to someone being directly offensive. It's about them setting a market rate price appropriate to an individual's circumstances. You may be upset that those may include attributes that you are born with, but you can't argue with the stats. So if I ran a hotel, and I crunched the numbers and found that on average black people left their rooms a bit messier than other clients, so I imposed a £5 a night black guest surcharge to cover the extra cost of cleaning, that would be okay? It's not offensive, it's market pricing. Edited March 2, 2011 by Dorkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Simplicity is usually better than complexity. Simple plan: Everyone starts at the same rate, and it changes up or down depending on their driving record. Complex plan, involving highly paid, highly educated actuaries. Ok you are a 5'7, lesbian Irish woman, black hair your premium will be x.xx. Ah you are an asian man, manchester city fan, receding hairline, 32, your premium will be x.xx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Strange it isn't 18-25 no? Maybe it was risk that determined the threshold....... I think they pitched it at a range that would capture their market. Similar to the principles that insurers use. Different facets, different numbers. Rolleyes indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingWithTheInlaws Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Are market forces your solution to absolutely everything? Should we deal with violent crime using market forces? Everybody could pay a private insurance company a premium so that if they were violently attacked, the insurance company would send some thugs round to the offender's house to deliver a beating. What's the market-based solution to child pornography? Or air pollution? Or neighbours playing loud music all night? I don't think it's wrong for governments to come up with some ground rules that govern what is reasonable behaviour in a civilised society, as long as those rules are not too onerous. Saying that you cannot treat people differently because of their gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation seems like a good principle to me. I'm not sure why you are comparing unreasonable behavior to the appropriate pricing of an insurance product. The offenders are not trying to sell us anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Simplicity is usually better than complexity. Simple plan: Everyone starts at the same rate, and it changes up or down depending on their driving record. Complex plan, involving highly paid, highly educated actuaries. Ok you are a 5'7, lesbian Irish woman, black hair your premium will be x.xx. Ah you are an asian man, manchester city fan, receding hairline, 32, your premium will be x.xx. I think you're confusing simplicity with being simplistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 All I mean is that the minute we call for rules based on our own value system, we're doing the dictator thing but sounding reasonable. Still haven't told me how child abuse is dealt with in your world. I'm not defending the current system, btw, just genuinely interested in how your world would cope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Nevertheless, the law, whether you consider it stupid or not, is the law. Given that law, this judgement is perfectly reasonable. The insurance companies RISK does not change - they are still insuring the same people, and for the same (total) amount of money. There is NO CHANGE as far as the insurers are concerned, apart from who is giving them their money. The bigger question, however, is that of whether anti-discriminatory laws are sensible and / or right. I think I know your thoughts on this. Just because its the law doesnt mean it has legitimacy. Isnt there a law that says I have to practice my longbow skills every Sunday. Isnt there another one about being able to kill a Welshman as long as it is with your sword? I think one state in Texas came up with a law that said pi was equal to 3. Regretably judges and law makers do insane things from time to time, and this judgement is one of them, in that it opposes the natural rules of insurance and economics. As for your idea that there is no change as far as insurers are concerned, that is completely wrong. Whether or not you obey the law is a decision we all make based on what we think that the consequences are. I frequently fail to practice my longbow, because I reckon I can get away with it. Insurers will now have a choice. Either obey the law and dont look at the sex of the applicant for driving insurance, or ignore the law in some way, and hope to get away with it. Unless the application of the law is rigorous and with hefty penalties, very soon everyone in car insurance will be either breaking this law, or be bust. If you insure young men, you have to pay out more money. It is only worth it if the price is right. This law forces companies to set the wrong price, just like Mugabe did with his price controls. That didnt work out well did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 So if I ran a hotel, and I crunched the numbers and found that on average black people left their rooms a bit messier than other clients, so I imposed a £5 a night black guest surcharge to cover the extra cost of cleaning, that would be okay? It's not offensive, it's market pricing. Correct. And if people decided you were an offensive git for doing it and boycotted your hotel and you went bust that would be market forces as well. See? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 No, it's not a value system. It's a description of behaviour in reality. A value judgement would be to say that market forces are amqazing, the best thing ever. To simply describe them as the realm in whch when you are told no you accept it with good grace is a factual description of how a free market operates. +1 but feeling a bit pedantic today....... I mean....... a market, by definition, is free? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingWithTheInlaws Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 So if I ran a hotel, and I crunched the numbers and found that on average black people left their rooms a bit messier than other clients, so I imposed a £5 a night black guest surcharge to cover the extra cost of cleaning, that would be okay? It's not offensive, it's market pricing. A hotel room is not a product or service that is priced differently for each individual's personal circumstance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Still haven't told me how child abuse is dealt with in your world. I'm not defending the current system, btw, just genuinely interested in how your world would cope. Be rid of all those who make a living from purporting to care and give more trust to those who do care...... neighbours etc....... as was shown in a case recently were , if memory serves, neighbours held back for reasons many & varied. ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Correct. And if people decided you were an offensive git for doing it and boycotted your hotel and you went bust that would be market forces as well. See? A world in which civilised behaviour comes about entirely through market forces sounds like a right pain. Everybody would have to spend all their time looking up each other's values on some internet database before they decide whether to boycott you or do business with you. Of course nobody would bother, and with no protection we might end up with unpopular minorities having an even harder time of it than they do now. So freedom for the mainstream majority, and a hard life for minorities. So much for freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 A world in which civilised behaviour comes about entirely through market forces sounds like a right pain. Everybody would have to spend all their time looking up each other's values on some internet database before they decide whether to boycott you or do business with you. Of course nobody would bother, and with no protection we might end up with unpopular minorities having an even harder time of it than they do now. So freedom for the mainstream majority, and a hard life for minorities. So much for freedom. So you are saying no one actually cares? If that's so....so what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Or it suggests that unlike saga, an insurance company dealing with cheap insurance for nutters under 25 would be out of business in no time .... Really...according to 'market forces' they'd cleanup in no time! A < 25 year old in some 2 litre GTI/RS turbo may drive like a nutter, but how does that justify charging another >£3000 to insure a 1.0 Micra? In my experience it isn't age or sex that seems to be the main factor determining bad/dangerous driving, but the car that gets driven. Are indicators on BMWs an expensive optional extra? Don't get me started on pr1cks in Volvos. Anyway not that any of this matters. The higher insurance companies put up their premiums, the more people will decide to take their chances with driving without it. How long do you reckon your 'protection against uninsured drivers' will last in your cover then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 So you are saying no one actually cares? If that's so....so what? No, I'm saying it's totally impractical. Nobody has the time to find out the racist/sexist/homophobic views of every person behind every transaction they make. Same as nobody has the time to find out the manufacturing process behind every sofa they buy in case it's made with toxic leather. So these jobs are delegated to government, not market forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.