What do you consider to be the best "con" of recent years?

[Rich]

To you use one of your favourite words, rubbish.

prove it, the concencus here is that I'm correct

 

[Steve R.]

1. Madoff pulled a fast one. A successful ponzi scheme of about $50 BILLION over a twenty year period.

2. Obama's promise of "change". Did he successfully fool most of the United States populace through empty rhetoric. Unfortunately, we have insufficient evidence. Time will tell.

3. Automotive bailout. The US taxpayers are now subsidizing exorbitantly paid executives, union workers, and Cerberus Capital Management. Capitalism at its best. Good thing we don't have socialism.

 

[Mike375]

The risk today is no greater than when the IRA was in full fling here, it's just an excuse to jack up premiums and profits

Well, I don't know the risk. But the risk is the same in terms of risk of physical damage that is one thing but today it can mean much bigger payouts because of the "no one is responsible for themself" situation

But you are failing to grasp what happens to a premium.

Here is a basic outline, general insurance will be similar.

A certain risk requires $X to go to statutory funds. This couild be likened to a manufacturing cost. Let's for example assume that 70% of the retail premium goes to the statutory fund then the insurance company is left with 30% to whatever with. They can piss it up against the wall.

There is a second part to the equation and that is the re insurer. The insurer pays to the re insured what might be likened to a wholesale price. In other words the insurer pays a higher percentage of the retail premium to the re insurer than applies to what the pay to their own statutory fund. They can'y just simply decide on some percentage to be reinsured, regulations control the amount which of course is in keeping withthe size of their own statutory funds.

Now to the last part. Quite often base premium rates by dramatically increase but the insurer will reduce their margin in the interests of keeping the premium within the level that the market can bear.

If base rates ( actuarial or manufacturing cost) falls it can mean the insurance coompany can increase the margin they put on top of the actuarial rate because the final retail premium will be low.

In Australia "death by accident only" policies are very profitable to the insurer. the reason is the risk is very low and so the actuarial premium is extremely low so there is heaps of room for a big margin. in addition most people are like yo and automatically equate a high premium rate with high profit and a low premium rate with low profit. Thus, it is thes small premium policies that could be classed as a rip off.

In short, a rise in premiums and especially when it is large can me a reduced profit to the insurance company and sometimes a zero profit.

 

[GaryPanic]

The risk today is no greater than when the IRA was in full fling here, it's just an excuse to jack up premiums and profits

Wrong - goverment then backed the insurers - this was removed once the IRA srted itself out

 

[Rich]

Wrong - goverment then backed the insurers - this was removed once the IRA srted itself out

Why wasn't it put back then during the current "threat" unless of course the risk isn't actually that great?

 

[Mike375]

Why wasn't it put back then during the current "threat" unless of course the risk isn't actually that great?

Perhaps it is because the risk is to great for tax payer dollars.

Please bear in mind there are two basic aspects to the risk situation

First, the chances of "it" occurring.

Secondly, the cost of "it" occurring which is ever so much higher today.

 

[Rich]

Perhaps it is because the risk is to great for tax payer dollars.

They gave my hard earned dollars to greedy and useless banks, and without even asking me first

First, the chances of "it" occurring.

I don't believe the chance of "it" happening are any higher today than twenty years ago

Secondly, the cost of "it" occurring which is ever so much higher today.[/

Then in the current economic climate insurance companies like local authorities should be seeking more competitive and realistic quotes

 

[Mike375]

The problem is not with "quotes" but rather the legal situation.

Today, if a small terrorist bomb went off in Sydney that could me all sorts of mental trauma etc. and etc.

Another problem that impacts on actuarial rates is discrimination and this is especially the case with Life company products. In short, more known bad risks have to be taken.

 

[speakers_86]

Well, it's nothing new, but my vote has to go to insurance.
Home owner's insurance. What are the odds your home will be utterly destroyed and yet we have to pay over $1000 a year for it.

Well, Tess, I actually do a lot of work under these plans, and they are a necessity. I am a water damage technician, which means if your house is flooded or has a mold issue, then I come to do the remediation(lingo for tear shit up until everythings okay!).

Really though, definitely needed. I just did mold remediation in one guys house. Bill was $8000, just for the tear-out. He still needs drywall, paint, texture, carpet, a shower. I wouldn't doubt if that comes to over $10,000. If you've never filed a claim, then I can see how that home owners premium seems pretty useless. The day you need to file a claim is the day you are thankful you have a policy!

 

[GaryPanic]

Why wasn't it put back then during the current "threat" unless of course the risk isn't actually that great?

Ask Gordon Brown/Tony Blair ...

Previouse Goverements had a different view
Also people will sue a PL policy in respect of terrorism - which doesn't make sense-
but the claimaint states that your inaction /action caused them mental anguish - you should of done (or not done) something to remove the person/people from the situation - even though the act of terrorism is nothing to do with you..

yeah its bull shit - but the claims are coming in -
even if the claim is dismissed the cost of hiring a lawyer/breif is high these costs have to be met by the premiums --

 

[Rich]

That's because we've become part of the US sue all culture

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Well, it's nothing new, but my vote has to go to insurance.
Home owner's insurance. What are the odds your home will be utterly destroyed and yet we have to pay over $1000 a year for it.

If you own your home outright (no mortgage) you don't have to insure it. Of course if it then burns to the ground, you're on your own for the cost of repair.

Insurance policies aren't necessarily meant to be value for money - they're meant to be affordable ways to protect against risks which aren't affordable.

On the loss of income insurance I mentioned upthread, I've actually paid more in premiums over the years than I received in payouts during my recent claim period (it could have exceeded the total of premiums, if I'd needed to claim for longer) - in hindsight, it would have been better for me to have put that £30 a month into a savings account... except that I did not have the benefit of hindsight when I took out the policy - loss of income could have happened a month or two afterwards, years later (as it actually did), or never at all.

 

[GaryPanic]

That's because we've become part of the US sue all culture

tell me about it ....
there are moves to restrict these nuisances claims - however with a briefs on a "no win - no fee " they stick a claim in say for 2-3k as the cost to defend the claim is going to be around 4-5 k - its easier to pay the claim than defend it - this culture has slowly changed with insurers now defending all claims

 

[Len Boorman]

The group that answers 'yes' seems to be mostly scientists

The group that answers 'no' (often strenuously) seems to contain a few more politicians and businessfolk.

Hmmm...

Not sure

Global warming seems to be used by politicians to justify tax rises. Al Gore whose "Inconvenient Truth" and hockey stick effect has been shown to be a total mockery. Whatever data was fed into the model the results were the same.

Frequently scientific research does use an element of Global Warming to get funds because otherwise funds would not be released.

I find the whole matter very difficult to resolve. I find myself unable to trust politicians and scientists because they both maybe have an alternative agends.

High levels of CO2 has been found in geological cores showing clearly that CO2 is present in higher levels.... after the Warm Period has ended.

So I remain unconvinced.

L

 

[Len Boorman]

Yeah, but the wind does blow sometimes in the UK, doesn't it?

Wind farms are not the whole solution. Nobody ever said they were, but they can be part of the solution, can't they?

Cold (or even hot)fusion power generation may quite possibly never leave the category of science fiction. I'm all for interesting research, but I think we'd be better off throwing some big money at things we already know can work.

Wind does blow in UK sometimes yes but the UK weather is not at all reliable.

There are applications where wind generation is very good. Generally higher level, more remote, northerly island applications.

History has shown that it is necessary to explore new processes/technologies without a known outcome in order to benefit from such events. Some may dispute Nuclear technology, Computers, Steam Engines, The internal combustion engine, and all the various drugs that have been developed.

It is a risk I grant but no pain then no gain.

Everybody entitled to their opinion though.

L

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

History has shown that it is necessary to explore new processes/technologies without a known outcome in order to benefit from such events. Some may dispute Nuclear technology, Computers, Steam Engines, The internal combustion engine, and all the various drugs that have been developed.

I agree, but in the meantime, we need to do what already works, or we can be reasonably sure will work. We can't just wait and hope that things like cold fusion turn out to be possible.

 

[Len Boorman]

I agree, but in the meantime, we need to do what already works, or we can be reasonably sure will work. We can't just wait and hope that things like cold fusion turn out to be possible.

I agree. Many years ago when due to oil crisis and all sorts of things the UK was on a 3 day week. That is electricity was only available for 3 days a week. Other days electricity was only available for about 3 hours

Under these circumstances you had to be very careful exactly what you used the energy for. Take that forward to now and shall we say environment pollution with CO2 should be attacked on the basis of "Do not burn it" If you do burn it then burn as efficiently as possible.

Consider the whole process when thinking about efficiency.

Electric cars are considered to be envirobmentally friendly. Where does teh electricity come from ?????.

Hydrogen as a fuel when burnt produces water. Hydrogen is I believe the most abundant element on this planet. Okay it is generally stuck to other things and needs scraping off before it is available for use but the potential in terms of energy production, non pollution etc are i believe enormous.

All existing gas and coal power stations modified to use hydrogen. What a result. Abundant energy and no pollution.

We need to technology investment. Getting hydrogen is not an unknown process. It needs investment to scale up to very large production volumes.

Maybe cold fusion needs to be put on back burner for a bit and concentrate on Hydrogen

L

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

If you can exploit some natural process to crack the water to get your hydrogen (there are biological photosynthetic processes that release it, for example), then it's maybe worth doing, or if you have a big, ready source of energy that isn't portable (such as a nuclear reactor, geothermal, or even suitably-sited wind farms), using the energy to release the hydrogen is not a bad way of making it a transportable resource.

But getting hydrogen unstuck from oxygen always costs energy - and always more energy than you could derive from burning it to generate power - and there's no way around that - it's the laws of thermodynamics.
So converting the power stations to run on it is do-able, but where can we get the hydrogen from, without expending more energy than we save?

 

[Ron_dK]

....but what is the best rip-off you have seen.

Champagne or Windows Vista ?

 

[Mike375]

Can someone explain to me how selling power back to the grid works. I don't mean the economics etc. but what is done with the electricity that someone generates in excess of their own requirements?