Regulations often benefit the entrenched regulated against the newcomer competitor.
"This needs a more nuanced fix
There is nuance, and then there is *never* nuance.
The "therefore" part of your argument "needs citation". There are many many factors at play.
"When conservatives tell me it's "politically correct nonsense", that to me is a denial of my identity."
If you choose to tie up your identity in politically correct nonsense, sorry, you're bringing it on yourself.
I wonder how many more overt measures that can be easily interpreted as pro-surveillance pro-advertising need google take, before the masses turn to alternatives like cyanogenmod etc.
"So yes, the bond holders got a raw deal, but lots of people got a raw deal during the meltdown of 2008."
That does not mean that normal bankruptcy law is appropriately abridged just for one group of beneficiaries. The feds didn't change the law - they just bullied secured bondholders into accepting a lot less than they were entitled to (from a selloff of the assets). It's a horrible precedent.
OK, if you're pedantic, call it a "mutual fund, mashed together with insurance and other financial products". But the fact that multiple products are sold to you in a tied package says nothing about the insurance component of the business. Even the fact that insurance companies try to invest the "float" etc. to maximize their income says nothing about the insurance component of the business.
Don't worry, in the next scene, our heroes find a doctor in the back, along with a jive lady, and another pilot with a drinking problem.
That's OK too. Shrink 'em down to the constitutional essentials.
Fishing for an Ig Nobel Prize perhaps, good luck!
"Ok, I apologize profusely."
"I thought you had some idea what you are talking about."
You were right.
You're using "expected" in a uselessly fuzzy and different way throughout, confusing "hoping" or "worrying about" and "average". The mathematical way, the quantitative way, is related to probability & money, and that is the language of business. You're also using "value" in a uselessly fuzzy and different way throughout, confusing dollars and feelings of enjoyment.
"But as you despised all subjective looks,"
Stop putting words in my mouth.
Do you have a succinct proposition you'd like to discuss?
"But as you despised all subjective looks"
I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that transactions ultimately occur in terms of dollars, so the participants have to translate their subjective values to objective quantities at some point.
"It only makes sense to buy a financial product when either you get back more money than you paid,"
Really. Do explain lotteries, or equity options, or numerous other financial products without a guaranteed positive return.
Similarly, in the case of insurance, if a covered peril occurs, you probably would likely get back more money than you personally paid. That changes nothing about the averages for a competently run run risk pool.
In every single dollar they pay (on average more) as premiums and receive (on average less) in benefits.
I'm sorry, are you putting me on? Would you seriously ask "where is nice objective dollars" in "having a good meal" or "wearing a comfy pair of shoes"?
Context, please, context. The quoted words were referring to your way of explaining how much more valuable money is to a sufferer. That way of looking at the problem is not worth much: it is qualitative, subjective, and vague.
But that's ok, people can value things in qualitative, subjective, and vague ways, as long as at the end of they day, they transact in nice objective dollars.