punked Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 you did not give me the mean of policies purchased you gave me the mean of the policies quoted. Again I ask you with 30 identical policies quoted, as a consumer which policy do you buy the one in the middle, the average or the lowest. Not a one of your links takes into account the purchasing habits of consumers. The client always wants the best policy for the lowest price. Someone must be buying the other policies otherwise they have a bad bisuness model. I wonder why they are buying it? Could it be that they are locking in so their is no steady rate increase, or their is a drop in the rate sooner? If so then yes people are buying from the lowest to the highest and the mean is a great number to take and compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Actually it cannot go up 40% in one year becuase a regulatory board has to apporive all auto rate increases in Alberta, in fact the companies just filed a rate drop here. I said 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Someone must be buying the other policies otherwise they have a bad bisuness model. I wonder why they are buying it? Could it be that they are locking in so their is no steady rate increase, or their is a drop in the rate sooner? If so then yes people are buying from the lowest to the highest and the mean is a great number to take and compare. Each company has market segments that they actively pursue. What axa is looking to underwrite for auot policies is vastley different then the type of client kingsway is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Each company has market segments that they actively pursue. What axa is looking to underwrite for auot policies is vastley different then the type of client kingsway is. I agree that is why the mean is a great number to go by. People buy across the spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 I said 5 years. personally my rates have changed 20% in the last five years but more of that has to do with buying different vehilces, my manditory coverage has only changed 7%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 personally my rates have changed 20% in the last five years but more of that has to do with buying different vehilces, my manditory coverage has only changed 7%. http://www.pr-inside.com/quarterly-car-ins...ca-r1415417.htm Yep 7% over just the last year. That takes a decade in Manitoba but in Alberta it happened in a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 I agree that is why the mean is a great number to go by. People buy across the spectrum. mean does not work for that, people buy the cheapest policy always. Depending on the market segement the client falls into will depend on who gives them the cheap policy, some companies are more compeditive on high value vehilces and good drivers but poor on low value or substandard risks. They the companies taylor their rates to attraci the market segement their business plan is geared to. People will automatically gravitate to the company that offers them the best rate for the segment that they fall into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 http://www.pr-inside.com/quarterly-car-ins...ca-r1415417.htmYep 7% over just the last year. That takes a decade in Manitoba but in Alberta it happened in a year. you do realise that 7% increase on madatory coverage amounts to a 1 to 10 dollars. We also had had no increases in it since the grid rates were brought in and when they came in the rates had been rolled back 12%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) http://www.pr-inside.com/quarterly-car-ins...ca-r1415417.htm. BTW this study was one that was actually done right the mean was taken on the lowest quotes of the sample not on ll the quotes, it takes into account consumer habit. This what you get when a group that understands the industry does a report, they understand what data is valid and invalad. Edited August 7, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 mean does not work for that, people buy the cheapest policy always. No they don't. Price is never the only consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Punked: If your insurance in Manitoba is as you describe it then it isn't long for this world. Adjustments for inflation have to be more than what you have quoted. If those rate increases are maintained they will be bankrupt within the next five years which, I believe you quoted was, 5% over 5 years. I looked at the study from the Centre for Policy Alternatives and found it a little partisan. They indeed are partisan and I always take that into account in every study. The Fraser Institute is partisan as well but they would support the right or the left if it promised smaller government. The left obviously wouldn't make such a promise so they are by default considered right wing. I am familiar with BC's insurance the most, ICBC, and in the chart with the 33 different scenarios they don't have one with two at fault collisions. If you have a perfect driving record (Road Star)and one at fault collision, your insurance doesn't change much. However, if you have two at fault collisions your insurance goes up 40% and it takes, I think, 7 years (used to be 5) to attain Road Star status again with a 40% reduction incremented over those 7 years. Insurance to me is a bit of a racket. They wouldn't go for no-fault insurance as there isn't any money in that but if I were interested I might look into that more deeply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) Here's an interesting tidbit that showed up in my Inbox. It puts forward a very interesting example and how the use of the "lowest common denominator" can drag a society down. As you move further Left on the political spectrum, adherants become more and more feverish about sharing everything equally - with the exception of those people who wield the power of course. The good reputation of any person (student included) depends first and foremost on him/her hiding the effort he/his making to succeed. No one wants to be friend with someone who is too vocal about the great sacrifices he/she is making to be rich or pretty. Edited August 7, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 No they don't. Price is never the only consideration. obviously you have never been a broker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Insurance company's are a very nice little legal scam. With the recession these folks got hurt in their investments, which is what they use to pay out money to clients. So it is easy to figure they seek rate increases, just to maintain their investment portfolios. What we need to keep in mind here is that government insurance schemes require lower funding because they lack the for profit motive. That nice little profit is what all private ventures both seek and require in order to operate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Socialism is all about rewarding courageous risk-takers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 ................and capitalism is all about looking after the poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 ................and capitalism is all about looking after the poor. Capitalism is about exploitation through expropriation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Capitalism is about exploitation through expropriation. The entire rant between the left and the right is foolish. Partisanship is the lifeblood of politics in Canada. It is the bane of our existence and a fundamentally flawed foundation at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 I wish it were that easy - but that's a naive view of capitalism. Unfettered Capitalism leads to greed - there needs to be some government regulation. Again, look at the Financial system in the US....everybody was competing for mortgages - they didn't care about down payments or collateral - just get that darn mortgage on the books.....mainly due to how people were compensated. In general, that type of implosion would be very unlikely to happen in Canada because of regulations that are in place for mortgages and the capital requirements for Banks. Unfettered capitalism can also lead to monopolies where all the competition is "bought out" or priced out of the market...leaving one big fat company that can take advantage of a captive market. So again, there has to be a balance between Capitalism and Socialism....dare I say, Social Conservatism? It is that easy. Capitalism is not in my view, supposed to be unfettered. The criminal element is supposed to be curtailed by government. Greed is not a crime - it is a moral question and moral behavior would be naturally molded and nascently understood if government actually did it's job of curtailing fraud and criminality and didn't worry itself with moral questions of greed. Actual greed will always wind up shunned and a change in behavior and redemption of one's integrity to society and the community is what will restore one to participation in society - if he so desires. I know you feel guilty when you buy your groceries because you wonder if Juan the coffee bean picker is getting a fair shake or if the farmers that are producing your food are making enough money to get by. They are, simply said, they would not be doing what they are doing if they weren't. No one is forcing them to do what they do. They may be constrained by factors in their lives but generally they are happy to be doing what they are doing. Socialists do tend to think of work as a chore and if government can help them work less all the better. It is unfortunate that most people would rather work less but that is, in my opinion, because they have a disconnect from what their work is accomplishing, especially in large corporations. I think the smaller the operation the more of a sense of contribution and feeling of connectedness one has with his work. A lot of times in large organizations, especially true of government I think, someone will always do the task of someone else if it needs to get done but isn't getting done - not all union members are irresponsible - some do avoid work as much as they can though. The mortgage crisis in the States was encouraged by government policy and the moral hazard created by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who own half the mortgages in the States, and I'll bet those mortgages are mostly comprised of Ninja mortgages. Certainly everyone contributed to the crisis but what got it started was government encouragement to provide homes and the American dream to as many Americans as possible. Barney Franks fostered that policy and told banks and mortgagors not to worry, just go ahead, everything is just fine. It let loose a bunch of kids in a candy store. There is nothing else that would make 100 year old institutions and a majority of the financial industry less prudent in their business practices all at once. Once it started the mob mentality set in and the boom got out of control. Barney Franks takse absolutely no responsibility for igniting the scenario. Anyway, it is simple. It seems the last sentence I made in the post you answered was missed so I will repeat it, Capitalism IS the economy and socialism is about State control of the economy. I will add that we today are living beyond our means but that is a problem of regulatory and fiscal economic policies of government accepted by society, not capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 The entire rant between the left and the right is foolish. Partisanship is the lifeblood of politics in Canada. It is the bane of our existence and a fundamentally flawed foundation at that. The Left thrives only when attacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Capitalism is about exploitation through expropriation. Expropriation? Impossible without State sanction. Capitalism requires subjective benefit to involved parties. You are talking about anarchy, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 The Left thrives only when attacked. Nice day today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Nice day today. Venezuela is a sunnier place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Expropriation? Impossible without State sanction. Capitalism requires subjective benefit to involved parties. You are talking about anarchy, I believe. I'm talking about General Intellect: http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpvirno10.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 We've all seen the detrimental effects that the extreme right has on the world economy. 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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.