Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[Happy Monkey]

This is fun.

Originally Posted by Donald Trump

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

[henry quirk]

"No, it's the actual context."

No, that's Dana's conventional interpretation, fostered by official statements from providers, and the elected. It may actually spread the risk or allow it to be shared, but that's not the reason for it, just the coincidental byproduct.

But, it's an interpretation.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"No, it's the actual context."

No, that's Dana's conventional interpretation, fostered by official statements from providers, and the elected. It may actually spread the risk or allow it to be shared, but that's not the reason for it, just the coincidental byproduct.

But, it's an interpretation.

Do you know the history of insurance? I do - and sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development.

You talk about your tolerance for risk. That's fine - it's up to you if you want to insure your risk. The mandatory nature of motor insurance is because of the third party element.

[limey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Do you know the history of insurance? I do - and sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development.

She’s right you know. I studied the history of insurance, too. Lloyd’s coffee shop, the sharing of risk and the sharing of gain from the actual (seafaring) adventures ....




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, Loyd's is the granddaddy of insurance, but not the premise.
It started when primitive people started banding into groups/villages, one for all, all for one.

[Griff]

Those dirty commies...

[henry quirk]

tw = rabid, agency-killing, communitarian.

Identified. Easy-peasy.

[glatt]

He's an idiot. Truly an idiot.

[henry quirk]

"Do you know the history of insurance?"

Sadly, no...the extent of my knowledge (and interest) is that Ben Franklin started an insurance company.

#

"sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development."

I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s). Providing a mechanism for 'sharing the risk' is the means by which that money is made.

'Big bucks' is not a byproduct but is the sought after goal.

[henry quirk]

Why?

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s).

Companies that operate on that principle are some of the most unproductive companies in this country. They believe the entire purpose of that company is to enrich the central committee - top management.

How ironic. That is also called communism. When socialism breaks down, the Central Committee of the Communist Party is only interested in their wealth and power.

henry quirk has just endorsed communism. Go figure.

The purpose of every company is its product. Profits are only a reward for successfully doing its purpose. That has always been fundamental to this America economy.

[henry quirk]

Nope. The purpose of every company is profit. Product or service is the means to profit. This is the basis of free enterprise (which I endorse and you despise).

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Nope. The purpose of every company is profit. Product or service is the means to profit. This is the basis of free enterprise (which I endorse and you despise).

GM wanted profits. So their products suck. They even kept making V-8 engines. As a result, only top management was reaping massive profits. Since those were the only profits that mattered.

GE did everything to maximize profits. Therefore GE product continue to lose markets. Siemens literaly gorges on GE's diminishing markets. No problem. A Central Committee (top management) is still reaping big bonuses.

Companies that worry about their products are this nation's benchmark industries. Intel ignores profits. Intel's success is based in their product - Moore's law. Intel literally risked the entire company many years ago because their next generation processors would not meet Moore's law. Their risky commitment worked. So Intel processors were cooler. AMD (that wanted to make profits) was losing money and market.

When a company wants profits, then short term profits are followed by massive losses. And the central committee of the communist party (top management) pads their bonuses. This nation's lesser productive companies are also noteworthy for highest paid corporate executives. Meanwhile, companies that innovate - make better products - then have massive profits.

Reality requires many paragraphs. And does not include any "Donald Trump" style insults. So an extremists (ie henry quirk) cannot grasp it.

Only an extremists would insist what was first told by the 'central committee of the communist party' must be the truth. A soundbyte describes this: brainwashing.

The purpose of every company - even non-profit ones - is always about its product.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

#

"sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development."

I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s). Providing a mechanism for 'sharing the risk' is the means by which that money is made.
.

depends what you mean by 'original'

I work for a 300 year old insurance company that began life as a fire insurance provider - the chap who started the company was inspired to start the venture by living through the great fire of London in which thousands of people lost everything they owned.

The theory was this: for the very wealthy it was possible to rebuild and recover (partly because much of their wealth was held in banks) while the artisan and newly emerging middle classes could be completely wiped out by a single unforeseen event.

And this basic principle is still true - if you are wealthy and your house burns down you have options to rebuild. If you are not wealthy (and most of us are not) then insurance stands in the place of wealth when disaster strikes.

Sharing the risk is not a byproduct of the means to profit - it goes hand in hand. It is the means of making profit - and the means of making profit allows for the sharing of risk. It is (when not entirely corrupt - see health insurance where no single payer scheme exists) a social good. It allows people to take risks they might not otherwise take (spending on goods rather than saving every spare penny to set against the possibility of disaster) - it allows banks to take risks on people (mortgages) and people to take risks on business ventures (liability insurance) it allows smaller landlords to offer homes (rent cover schemes) and a host of other stuff.

The notion that companies exist for one sole purpose is as untenable as the notion that people generally act on single motives.

[sexobon]

That's certainly true of firearms manufacturers. Their purpose has always been to make a good product.