Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

James,

This isn't a claimant / defendant issue, it is one of principal: you inferred that the 'freehand' of the market would result in the insurers reducing premiums and you're simply wrong.

With respect, I really don't think that you quite understand how pricing works.

If you were correct and you are not then they results that you posit would have been evident a very long time ago and certainly more recently in the age of blanket advertising of comparison sites and so on: that there has been no such move to equilibrium (or near to it) is positive evidence that you're wrong.

As for having a basic understanding of economics, yes, I think my foundations are sufficient: from the development of the law of contract in 15th 17th C Europe (particularly in the Northern cities and Lyon) through to the early borsa and through to the application and impact of Marx following the 1848 revolutions.

I'm happier on the historical macro economic arguments (particularly with the Basel II+/3 and reserving/actuarial aspects) on insurance price trends than micro economics and price elasticity, certainly when you throw in the sub set of game theory and how the modelling (of for example air line tickets) effects S/D.

Your details

Cancel