What Do Socialism and Capitalism Mean to You

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm saying the regulators would make them put men and women in the same pool--men are undercharged, women are overcharged, but the net effect to the insurance company is approximately zero.

Approximately. But the consequence is that who can most accurately calculate the impact of sex on accidents is something the different companies no longer have to compete with one another on. Competition between providers is dying the death of a thousand cuts and that's one more cut. Each cut moves the product's price point another epsilon away from the competitive price toward the monopoly price.

Yup. Every time insurance companies find non-obvious ways to evaluate risk better they're being prevented from doing so as "unfair".

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

More precisely, state regulators closely parallel hometown referees. If you are domiciled in the state, you will have a much easier time getting what you want/need than an insurer who tries to write business in that state but pays its taxes elsewhere. If you come up with a new dynamic pricing system and try to file it in another state, you will have tremendous difficulty getting it approved - unless or until a company domiciled in that state files the same rating schematic. This is truer for smaller insurers because the big guys have entire divisions dedicated to filing and government relations.

aa

 

[Emily Lake]

That sounds less like a "Nope--' than like a "Yep, but also--". Regulations typically take the form "You must X, and your competitors must also X." Some regulations such as price caps are a net harm to every firm, true; but other regulations can be a net help to your firm because their restrictions on your competitors indirectly help you more than those regulations directly hurt you by restricting you. Regulatory agencies go in for both kinds.

Or are you saying the same states that banned sex-dependent premiums ordered insurers to lower men's premiums to match women's but also prohibited them from compensating for that by raising women's premiums? That sounds like it would be a good way to get insurance companies to tell them where to stick it and leave the state entirely.

A good insurance commissioner's job is twofold. First, they serve to protect consumers from products that are misrepresented, fraudulent, exploitative, etc. Insurance is complicated, and the average person isn't going to be able to tell whether what they're buying is fairly priced or not - that's what the insurance regulators do, they ensure that the price is appropriate for what is being delivered.

On the other hand, they also have to make sure that the insurer's pricing and capital reserves are adequate and sustainable. A good regulator will make sure that an insurer is not undercharging for their product by more than they can bear. That doesn't mean a product is never lowballed - it just means that the insurer must be able to demonstrate that they have sufficient capital reserves to cover the risk they're taking on.

Not all commissioners are good at their job. Some are more politically motivated than others. Some are more company-biased and give insurers more freedom; some are more consumer-biased and are much more focused on the benefit to consumers. A good commissioner keeps the balance.

 

[Emily Lake]

In some places, auto insurers aren't allowed to distinguish between male and female drivers, even though there are statistically material differences in the likelihood of an accident by sex.

Microeconomics suggests insurers would love that regulation -- it would let them get away with charging women higher premiums than otherwise. Pure profit. In a normal market, a company that tried this would lose women's business to some competitor who priced its policies based on sex-dependent accident likelihood -- unless there were some reason the competitors weren't going to undercut it. If all the companies stopped considering sex together and raised all their profits, by colluding, that would be an antitrust violation. But if all the companies stop considering sex together and raise all their profits because the government is ordering them to, sweet!

Nope--insurance companies have to get state approval for rates for the commonly-required types of insurance. They're not going to get it if they jack the price up too much. (What we actually see is the opposite--regulators trying to hold rates down to the point insurance companies tell them where to stick it and leave the state entirely.)

That sounds less like a "Nope--' than like a "Yep, but also--". Regulations typically take the form "You must X, and your competitors must also X." Some regulations such as price caps are a net harm to every firm, true; but other regulations can be a net help to your firm because their restrictions on your competitors indirectly help you more than those regulations directly hurt you by restricting you. Regulatory agencies go in for both kinds.

Or are you saying the same states that banned sex-dependent premiums ordered insurers to lower men's premiums to match women's but also prohibited them from compensating for that by raising women's premiums? That sounds like it would be a good way to get insurance companies to tell them where to stick it and leave the state entirely.

I'm saying the regulators would make them put men and women in the same pool--men are undercharged, women are overcharged, but the net effect to the insurance company is approximately zero.

Approximately, yes. I suspect there are some under-the-hood interactions that result in the net average cost being higher than if it remained sex-based. I would suspect that single women would shop around more, because their rates have increased for reasons that have nothing at all to do with their driving history or behavior. And I would suspect there might be an increased moral hazard risk for single males, who see their rates go down despite their statistically higher likelihood to be involved in an accident. I'm not sure if it would have any impact on heterosex married couples.

 

[Emily Lake]

LMAO!

Anti-capitalist 'pay what you can' cafe in Canada closes doors after one year

A cafe and coffee shop in Toronto named "The Anarchist," which was a self-described "anti-capitalist" establishment that had a "pay what you can" model of operation, has announced it will shut down after being open for only a year.
The Canadian business opened in March 2022. According to an announcement from The Anarchist's owner, Gabriel Sims-Fewer, the cafe will close on May 30.
[...]
The Anarchist cafe also fulfilled "the dream of most service workers by not having to tolerate the presence of professional class-traitors (pigs and military)," according to Sims-Fewer, who added that cafe offered chances to experiment "with living and working in ways that don't enthusiastically embrace the pure misanthropy of Capitalism."
[...]
At the end of the announcement, Sims-Fewer strings together a few expletives and bolds the text, saying: "F*** the rich. F*** the police. F*** the state. F*** the colonial death camp we call 'Canada.'"
Back when the cafe first opened, Sims-Fewer said that he wanted the establishment to be a place for anti-capitalists.

What a dumbass!

All else aside, this quip made me laugh, literally out loud.

Unfortunately, the lack of generational wealth/seed capital from ethically bankrupt sources left me unable to weather the quiet winter season, or to grow in the ways needed to be sustainable longer-term," Sims-Fewer says in the announcement.

The lack of capitalists willing to financially support his endeavors to tell capitalists to go fuck themselves has been his undoing... and he doesn't seem to get that at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

LMAO!

Anti-capitalist 'pay what you can' cafe in Canada closes doors after one year

A cafe and coffee shop in Toronto named "The Anarchist," which was a self-described "anti-capitalist" establishment that had a "pay what you can" model of operation, has announced it will shut down after being open for only a year.
The Canadian business opened in March 2022. According to an announcement from The Anarchist's owner, Gabriel Sims-Fewer, the cafe will close on May 30.
[...]
The Anarchist cafe also fulfilled "the dream of most service workers by not having to tolerate the presence of professional class-traitors (pigs and military)," according to Sims-Fewer, who added that cafe offered chances to experiment "with living and working in ways that don't enthusiastically embrace the pure misanthropy of Capitalism."
[...]
At the end of the announcement, Sims-Fewer strings together a few expletives and bolds the text, saying: "F*** the rich. F*** the police. F*** the state. F*** the colonial death camp we call 'Canada.'"
Back when the cafe first opened, Sims-Fewer said that he wanted the establishment to be a place for anti-capitalists.

What a dumbass!

Ooh, I have so many examples of capitalist cafe and coffee shops that have closed their doors recently. Shall I start listing them all as proof of the failure of capitalism?

That wouldn't prove anything though. One of the cornerstones of capitalist business is that some will fail. That some business ventures fail isn't a failing of capitalism, it's part and parcel of it.

 

[Gospel]

It is 2023, and we still debate our economic options as if it's the binary: 100% socialism or 100% capitalism. Meanwhile, the USA and China have successfully blended the two for nearly a century now.

 

[bilby]

It is 2023, and we still debate our economic options as if it's the binary: 100% socialism or 100% capitalism. Meanwhile, the USA and China have successfully blended the two for nearly a century now.

And the EU have a more effective (and more thorough) blend than either, because they don't believe that either is a dirty word.

The result is fewer billionaires, but also less poverty, and (perhaps more importantly) less desperation and struggle for those who are unfortunate enough to be poor.

EU infrastructure is typically rather better maintained too.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is 2023, and we still debate our economic options as if it's the binary: 100% socialism or 100% capitalism. Meanwhile, the USA and China have successfully blended the two for nearly a century now.

And the EU have a more effective (and more thorough) blend than either, because they don't believe that either is a dirty word.

The result is fewer billionaires, but also less poverty, and (perhaps more importantly) less desperation and struggle for those who are unfortunate enough to be poor.

EU infrastructure is typically rather better maintained too.

Agree that it's not either-or.

With respect to EU... does this hold true for ALL member countries in the union? Do ALL of them have better infrastructure and low poverty?

 

[bilby]

It is 2023, and we still debate our economic options as if it's the binary: 100% socialism or 100% capitalism. Meanwhile, the USA and China have successfully blended the two for nearly a century now.

And the EU have a more effective (and more thorough) blend than either, because they don't believe that either is a dirty word.

The result is fewer billionaires, but also less poverty, and (perhaps more importantly) less desperation and struggle for those who are unfortunate enough to be poor.

EU infrastructure is typically rather better maintained too.

Agree that it's not either-or.

With respect to EU... does this hold true for ALL member countries in the union? Do ALL of them have better infrastructure and low poverty?

Those that don't have better infrastructure are rapidly moving towards it, as the EU funds massive road construction projects, and other infrastructural improvements in member states which are below their target standards. This tends to also provide a lot of jobs in those states, which has a significant impact on poverty.