> Risk-sharing mutual aid societies are now among the largest and best-funded organisations on the planet - we call them "governments".
I'm not aware of any mutual aid society that shot an unarmed man SEVEN TIMES IN THE HEAD because they misidentified him. The Metropolitan Police did, and none of the officers were disciplined.
That right there is a great example of the bias of the BBC.
----
The article is engaging but doesn't give a good explanation of the difference between "insurance" and "gambling".
At the very end it brings up financial derivatives but again does not explain them well or the danger they caused.
Is "insurance" a type of "gambling"? Maybe. But it's quite different from gambling in a US casino (and I presume UK casino).
In the US, "gambling" refers to wagers placed at known odds, sometimes against other players; legal gambling has limitations on how much money the House can take: e.g. if a casino "wins" $100, they must also pay $80 to someone.
Again in the US, "insurance" (excepting health "insurance", which is mostly not insurance) is someone paying a regular premium and the insurer promising to pay if certain events happening to the person, with the government requiring that the insurer keep financial reserves to pay out claims. If you stop paying your premiums, you lose your insurance. If the insured events never happen, the insurer keeps your money.
In a sense, insurance is a type of gambling, but closer to buying an umbrella in the morning in case it rains in the afternoon.
Financial derivatives were portrayed as insurance but were not regulated as such, and the banks did not keep reserves to pay them out; because folks were also taking "insurance" against events that happened to third-parties (i.e. not themselves) it looks a lot like gambling (though they weren't regulated as that, either).
I highly recommend the film "The Big Short" to explain the 2008 financial crisis in fairly plain terms. (I finally picked up the book but it's in the queue on my shelf.)
> Risk-sharing mutual aid societies are now among the largest and best-funded organisations on the planet - we call them "governments".
I'm not aware of any mutual aid society that shot an unarmed man SEVEN TIMES IN THE HEAD because they misidentified him. The Metropolitan Police did, and none of the officers were disciplined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jean_Charles_de_Me...
That right there is a great example of the bias of the BBC.
----
The article is engaging but doesn't give a good explanation of the difference between "insurance" and "gambling".
At the very end it brings up financial derivatives but again does not explain them well or the danger they caused.
Is "insurance" a type of "gambling"? Maybe. But it's quite different from gambling in a US casino (and I presume UK casino).
In the US, "gambling" refers to wagers placed at known odds, sometimes against other players; legal gambling has limitations on how much money the House can take: e.g. if a casino "wins" $100, they must also pay $80 to someone.
Again in the US, "insurance" (excepting health "insurance", which is mostly not insurance) is someone paying a regular premium and the insurer promising to pay if certain events happening to the person, with the government requiring that the insurer keep financial reserves to pay out claims. If you stop paying your premiums, you lose your insurance. If the insured events never happen, the insurer keeps your money.
In a sense, insurance is a type of gambling, but closer to buying an umbrella in the morning in case it rains in the afternoon.
Financial derivatives were portrayed as insurance but were not regulated as such, and the banks did not keep reserves to pay them out; because folks were also taking "insurance" against events that happened to third-parties (i.e. not themselves) it looks a lot like gambling (though they weren't regulated as that, either).
I highly recommend the film "The Big Short" to explain the 2008 financial crisis in fairly plain terms. (I finally picked up the book but it's in the queue on my shelf.)