Interesting Articles...

[grodnoking]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/hotel-owner-leaves-over-2-million-to-his-employees/

[good sam]

I thought it was a good thing, no?

"That is the attention-grabbing idea behind a project that aims to promote cultural understanding and dialogue by offering face-to-face encounters with Jews living in Germany."

Good intentions I believe, but no thank you.

[Ergel]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/sports/baseball/baseball-card-collectors-guy-zinn.html?0p19G=c&_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

[skyguy918]

Logged in at work this morning to a message - essentially damage control - from our CEO about this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/us/insurance-policies-on-slaves-new-york-lifes-complicated-past.html?_r=0

[ExGingi]

Logged in at work this morning to a message - essentially damage control - from our CEO about this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/us/insurance-policies-on-slaves-new-york-lifes-complicated-past.html?_r=0

The interesting thing is, that this would have made the company under those circumstances a P&C insurance company. As evidenced from the following paragraph, making the distinction between pure life insurance and Property insurance.

"Officials typically insured the lives of white customers for $1,000 to $5,000 in the early years. Slaves, on the other hand, were considered property under the law and were typically insured for about $400, the records show, and some for as little as $200."

[skyguy918]

The interesting thing is, that this would have made the company under those circumstances a P&C insurance company. As evidenced from the following paragraph, making the distinction between pure life insurance and Property insurance.

"Officials typically insured the lives of white customers for $1,000 to $5,000 in the early years. Slaves, on the other hand, were considered property under the law and were typically insured for about $400, the records show, and some for as little as $200."

Yes and no. One could argue that actuarially speaking, the difference between life and P&C is what the risk is. Since the risk is still mortality, it remains life and not P&C.

[ExGingi]

Yes and no. One could argue that actuarially speaking, the difference between life and P&C is what the risk is. Since the risk is still mortality, it remains life and not P&C.

There's a reason why the insurance amounts are different.

I don't want to split hairs here, or have it sound wrong, but if one were to insure his cattle, what's the risk? Also, the insurable interest here was viewed as property (not that I know what insurable interest laws were back then), as opposed to "key person" which would be an acceptable life risk in today's day and age.

[skyguy918]

There's a reason why the insurance amounts are different.

I don't want to split hairs here, or have it sound wrong, but if one were to insure his cattle, what's the risk? Also, the insurable interest here was viewed as property (not that I know what insurable interest laws were back then), as opposed to "key person" which would be an acceptable life risk in today's day and age.

We don't appear to be arguing. I wrote, yes and no. The no would be from an actuarial perspective (as I wrote), and your reply has no bearing on that statement.

[aro123]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/12/17/maine-man-wins-right-to-wear-goat-horns-in-license-photo-saying-they-are-religious-attire/?utm_term=.e9b2556acde5
and he even washes them once in a while to make CBC happy

[skyguy918]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/jewish-ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-synagogue-232801

[ExGingi]

We don't appear to be arguing. I wrote, yes and no. The no would be from an actuarial perspective (as I wrote), and your reply has no bearing on that statement.

Not exactly. It's a totally different types of mortality risk. Would you say that insuring cattle against death is also life insurance? As horrible as it sounds, slaves were actually viewed as property.

[JTZ]

As horrible as it sounds, slaves were actually viewed as property.

You make it sound like some might not know this was the norm in our history at one point.

[good sam]

Not exactly. It's a totally different types of mortality risk. Would you say that insuring cattle against death is also life insurance? As horrible as it sounds, slaves were actually viewed as property.

I'm not an insurance person but it seems fundamentally different than life. Life needs to cover support for X years. Slave insurance should just cover replacement cost. P&C.

[aygart]

You make it sound like some might not know this was the norm in our history at one point.

different things drive the point home fit distant people. For an insurance guy it will be insurance policies.

[ExGingi]

You make it sound like some might not know this was the norm in our history at one point.

Well, the tone of the article makes it sound like NYL (in its original incarnation named the Nautilus Insurance Company) did something terrible by insuring slaves. As you have pointed out, it was quite the norm to view slaves as property. What I find odd is that a company in the life insurance business (and not in the property and casualty business) would engage in this type of insurance.

[skyguy918]

Well, the tone of the article makes it sound like NYL (in its original incarnation named the Nautilus Insurance Company) did something terrible by insuring slaves. As you have pointed out, it was quite the norm to view slaves as property. What I find odd is that a company in the life insurance business (and not in the property and casualty business) would engage in this type of insurance.

Not exactly. It's a totally different types of mortality risk. Would you say that insuring cattle against death is also life insurance? As horrible as it sounds, slaves were actually viewed as property.

Except it's not. Slave mortality would certainly have been more similar (even in those times when they were viewed as property) to that of free people than that of cattle. That would be born out both from a statistical perspective too, and to a lesser extent, from the fact that a life insurance company engaged in insuring slaves 

I'm not an insurance person but it seems fundamentally different than life. Life needs to cover support for X years. Slave insurance should just cover replacement cost. P&C.

It's funny you mention that, because in this way they're often more similar than you'd think - just not in a way that necessarily excludes cattle. The first reason for buying life insurance IMO is income replacement. Same is with the slave - replace the income/productivity lost. Either way, this doesn't change the categorization from an actuarial perspective. Like I said before, it's about the nature of the underlying risk.

[churnbabychurn]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/business/dealbook/platinum-partners-hedge-fund-founder-and-6-others-charged-with-fraud.html?referer=http://www.google.com/

[ExGingi]

Except it's not. Slave mortality would certainly have been more similar (even in those times when they were viewed as property) to that of free people than that of cattle. That would be born out both from a statistical perspective too, and to a lesser extent, from the fact that a life insurance company engaged in insuring slaves 

I don't know (and it might be interesting to find out) if they used different mortality tables or assumptions for slaves than they did for free people. One thing I am certain amount, back then there weren't any non-smoker or preferred health discounts. And while I did bring up cattle, I didn't intend to compare the life expectancy to that of a slave, but rather than it is a living being which is property.

From the article it seems like they didn't use different tables for slaves, and after a short period, payouts matched premiums.

[Ergel]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-despite-the-complaints-of-many-mlb-players-are-actually-not-overpaid/

It's actually too obvious to be interesting, but it's shocking how many people don't understand this.
Same with the people crying for equal pay for male and female athletes

[JTZ]

Same with the people crying for equal pay for male and female athletes

Should the US women's soccer team players be paid more than the men's?