Split from 2020 Elections: Energy Technology

[dismalist]

What's the error?

Expected [financial, I guess] value of insurance is < 0 is misleading. Expected utility, i.e. one's personal valuation, of insurance must be > 0. Otherwise, we wouldn't do it, or: I'd rather have my house burn down than pay for insurance! :-)

Pity about the insurance part, because that's the way we should be thinking about such problems. Never mind, the article is really good for the inter-temporal stuff.

[jimbogumbo]

What's the error?

Expected [financial, I guess] value of insurance is < 0 is misleading. Expected utility, i.e. one's personal valuation, of insurance must be > 0. Otherwise, we wouldn't do it, or: I'd rather have my house burn down than pay for insurance! :-)

Pity about the insurance part, because that's the way we should be thinking about such problems. Never mind, the article is really good for the inter-temporal stuff.

It is misleading, but also factual. It also isn't useful. I mean, the expected value has to be less than 0 for the consumer or insurance companies couldn't exist.

[dismalist]

What's the error?

Expected [financial, I guess] value of insurance is < 0 is misleading. Expected utility, i.e. one's personal valuation, of insurance must be > 0. Otherwise, we wouldn't do it, or: I'd rather have my house burn down than pay for insurance! :-)

Pity about the insurance part, because that's the way we should be thinking about such problems. Never mind, the article is really good for the inter-temporal stuff.

It is misleading, but also factual. It also isn't useful. I mean, the expected value has to be less than 0 for the consumer or insurance companies couldn't exist.

Cancel your fire insurance!

[spork]

What's the error?

Expected [financial, I guess] value of insurance is < 0 is misleading. Expected utility, i.e. one's personal valuation, of insurance must be > 0. Otherwise, we wouldn't do it, or: I'd rather have my house burn down than pay for insurance! :-)

Pity about the insurance part, because that's the way we should be thinking about such problems. Never mind, the article is really good for the inter-temporal stuff.

You can always have the government force others to pay for your insurance, at least in part, as happens with beachfront vacation homes in hurricane zones.

[jimbogumbo]

What's the error?

Expected [financial, I guess] value of insurance is < 0 is misleading. Expected utility, i.e. one's personal valuation, of insurance must be > 0. Otherwise, we wouldn't do it, or: I'd rather have my house burn down than pay for insurance! :-)

Pity about the insurance part, because that's the way we should be thinking about such problems. Never mind, the article is really good for the inter-temporal stuff.

It is misleading, but also factual. It also isn't useful. I mean, the expected value has to be less than 0 for the consumer or insurance companies couldn't exist.

Cancel your fire insurance!

?

Not I. I was agreeing with you, and mocking the inclusion of the statement by the author.