Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

How to fix the world's economy: a guide for politicians

2»

Comments

  • WardWard Member Posts: 1,305
    edited November 2012
    @elminster Here's a quote from a clan member:

    "Basically, the price of items go up and down in the grand exchange based on demand.
    If eveyone wants an item, then that item's cost will go up.
    If everyone is selling an item, that item's cost will go down.
    Believe it or not, the market is not manipulated by individual merchanters...but CLANS!

    Someone, almost always the clan leader, will choose an item to "buy out". After announcing this item, everyone in the clan will go to the Grand Exchange, and buy this item at a high price. By basic demand, the cost of this "item" will rise up quickly. A few days later, after this item has gone up in the grand exchange, the clan will sell all these items at a much higher price for huge profit.

    Buy as much of this item as desired. Obviously, the more you buy, the more potential for profit you have. If you are unsure, do not invest all of your gold into this item. The next day, that item will rise in the grand exchange. This is because every person in that clan (people with high capital) is buying that item. Because everyone is buying out that item, and no one is selling, demand goes up. Therefore, its price will rise in the grand exchange. Make sure you dump the item at the "dumping price" or earlier. You can find the dumping price by asking people in the clan.

    Example:
    I bought 230 rune full helms for 20k each.

    As expected, rune full helm rose all the way up to 26k, where it was dumped

    230 rune full helms x 6k profit off each one = 1,380,000 gold.

    The more gold you start out with, the more profit you can make.
    With 1 mil gold you can make 300k
    With 10 mil gold you can make 3 mil
    with 100 mil gold you can make 30 mil.
    With 1 bil gold you can make 300 mil.
    Profit is exponential!"

    If this works in a game, I think this works in real life.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982
    edited November 2012
    Ward said:

    @elminster I disagree man. When the system is built to decide what stuff costs depending on the people's demand, it's open to basic price manipulations.

    Let me give you an example. Runescape (a game I used to play on the internet) took out the ability to freely trade items between you and other people and forced you to participate in the 'Grand Exchange'.

    Now the Grand Exchange was a system where items were set at a 'market value' and gave you the ability to purchase items slightly above or below market value as long as somebody else is selling it for the price you want it.

    This system was manipulated by people in clans who purposely bought out very popular items, causing the price to skyrocket, hoarding them as demand increases, then DUMPING them back into the market for huge money.

    Can the real economy not be manipulated in the same way by creating FAKE demand for things people want to buy?

    Well I did say generally. There are instances where "fake" demand is created. For instance computer programs involved in the buying and selling of stocks and derivatives are programmed to push the market for stocks in certain directions in certain conditions (depending on the programmer) in order obviously for the creator of the program to make money.

    What you are describing in economic terms is a cartel (but also a ponsy scheme kind of at the same time). Cartels are where a group of people who have complete control of a market in certain goods work together to determine the price of that good being sold and who use tactics to undermine emerging competitors. There aren't many real world examples of this, the illegal drug industry would be one I suppose, but generally cartels don't last in the market because individuals with the knowledge they acquired working in them often have the incentive to leave with the knowledge they have acquired in order to make more money that way. However, cartels only work when they do work because their customers are willing to pay the price the cartel sets.

    Now maybe I'm missing something here, but the way you describe this instance in Runescape it sounds as much like a ponzi scheme. It would depend of course on how transactions worked in this scenario and how much advanced notice of a sale/buying of items guild members were given, but it sounds like it since a leadership is deciding on what good should be bought and when they are sold. In this case were the clans in question having all their members hand over the items they bought to the clan leadership to be sold all at once for a high price? or were members buying and selling as individuals? also what were the requirements to get into these clans? (monetary requirements etc), Sorry just trying to figure out exactly what they were doing.

    Wardbooinyoureyes
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    edited November 2012
    Ward said:

    @TJ_Hooker Do you think that most people in positions of great power and political influence are sincere and benevolent and have YOUR best interests at heart? You're a fool if you actually believe that anyone with pockets lined with cash want to fix a global economic problem which thrives on allowing the rich to stay rich and never give anything out.

    I didn't realize that economists are all a bunch of elite fat cats.
    Ward said:

    It's not pretentious to offer my two cents and you're a little man to be so offended that I try to voice my opinions after watching the presidential election and relating it to our situation here overseas.

    1) I never said I was offended, just that I found it silly.
    2) You're right that you have every right to voice your opinion, and doing so doesn't make you pretentious. What I find pretentious is that you present these opinions as if they were fact, something you seem to do somewhat regularly, at least on these forums.

    Brude
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982
    The thing I would point out on Runescape is that there is only one market for buying and selling goods. If it did not even allow individuals to trade money for goods without having to go through the market, then that system can't be used to accurately represent the world economy. There aren't many cases where there is only one distributor of a certain good. Even amazon (which is more of an example of the kind of marketplaces like you are referring to except it exists in real life) has craigslist, ebay, etc as competitors.

    WardvorticanTJ_Hookerbooinyoureyes
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982

    Ward said:

    @elminster I disagree man. When the system is built to decide what stuff costs depending on the people's demand, it's open to basic price manipulations.

    Let me give you an example. Runescape (a game I used to play on the internet) took out the ability to freely trade items between you and other people and forced you to participate in the 'Grand Exchange'.

    Now the Grand Exchange was a system where items were set at a 'market value' and gave you the ability to purchase items slightly above or below market value as long as somebody else is selling it for the price you want it.

    This system was manipulated by people in clans who purposely bought out very popular items, causing the price to skyrocket, hoarding them as demand increases, then DUMPING them back into the market for huge money.

    Can the real economy not be manipulated in the same way by creating FAKE demand for things people want to buy?

    Those manipulations certainly can happen, but acting as if having a powerful single entity decide on price doesn't have those very same drawbacks plus more is incorrect.
    Price Controls are what you are talking about. And in every single case where price controls happen in the real world, you get two things; shortages and a massive black market. Whether it is Nixon's gasoline policies, the entire soviet economy, or rent controls all over the world, you get very serious negative influences.
    It sounds to me like you have genuine concerns about real world problems, but we disagree that centralizing authority would improve the situation.

    The economic calculation problem is the theory that explains why a free market is, by far, the best way to determine prices. Knowledge of the factors that should determine price is too distributed for any one human or group of humans to internalize. The only way to distribute this information is to allow price signals between individuals to determine prices. Again, some people, through concerted effort, can temporarily cheat the system, whether it be top-down or bottom-up. The difference is that a bottom-up system does a much better job of allowing people who see an opportunity to take advantage of an improperly priced good to correct this imbalance much sooner.
    See I knew there would be someone on here who could explain all this stuff better than me. Well done.

  • triclops41triclops41 Member Posts: 202
    elminster said:

    Ward said:

    @elminster I disagree man. When the system is built to decide what stuff costs depending on the people's demand, it's open to basic price manipulations.

    Let me give you an example. Runescape (a game I used to play on the internet) took out the ability to freely trade items between you and other people and forced you to participate in the 'Grand Exchange'.

    Now the Grand Exchange was a system where items were set at a 'market value' and gave you the ability to purchase items slightly above or below market value as long as somebody else is selling it for the price you want it.

    This system was manipulated by people in clans who purposely bought out very popular items, causing the price to skyrocket, hoarding them as demand increases, then DUMPING them back into the market for huge money.

    Can the real economy not be manipulated in the same way by creating FAKE demand for things people want to buy?

    Those manipulations certainly can happen, but acting as if having a powerful single entity decide on price doesn't have those very same drawbacks plus more is incorrect.
    Price Controls are what you are talking about. And in every single case where price controls happen in the real world, you get two things; shortages and a massive black market. Whether it is Nixon's gasoline policies, the entire soviet economy, or rent controls all over the world, you get very serious negative influences.
    It sounds to me like you have genuine concerns about real world problems, but we disagree that centralizing authority would improve the situation.

    The economic calculation problem is the theory that explains why a free market is, by far, the best way to determine prices. Knowledge of the factors that should determine price is too distributed for any one human or group of humans to internalize. The only way to distribute this information is to allow price signals between individuals to determine prices. Again, some people, through concerted effort, can temporarily cheat the system, whether it be top-down or bottom-up. The difference is that a bottom-up system does a much better job of allowing people who see an opportunity to take advantage of an improperly priced good to correct this imbalance much sooner.
    See I knew there would be someone on here who could explain all this stuff better than me. Well done.
    Do you listen to Russ Robert's podcast, Econtalk? I have a feeling you would like it a lot.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982


    elminster said:

    Ward said:

    @elminster I disagree man. When the system is built to decide what stuff costs depending on the people's demand, it's open to basic price manipulations.

    Let me give you an example. Runescape (a game I used to play on the internet) took out the ability to freely trade items between you and other people and forced you to participate in the 'Grand Exchange'.

    Now the Grand Exchange was a system where items were set at a 'market value' and gave you the ability to purchase items slightly above or below market value as long as somebody else is selling it for the price you want it.

    This system was manipulated by people in clans who purposely bought out very popular items, causing the price to skyrocket, hoarding them as demand increases, then DUMPING them back into the market for huge money.

    Can the real economy not be manipulated in the same way by creating FAKE demand for things people want to buy?

    Those manipulations certainly can happen, but acting as if having a powerful single entity decide on price doesn't have those very same drawbacks plus more is incorrect.
    Price Controls are what you are talking about. And in every single case where price controls happen in the real world, you get two things; shortages and a massive black market. Whether it is Nixon's gasoline policies, the entire soviet economy, or rent controls all over the world, you get very serious negative influences.
    It sounds to me like you have genuine concerns about real world problems, but we disagree that centralizing authority would improve the situation.

    The economic calculation problem is the theory that explains why a free market is, by far, the best way to determine prices. Knowledge of the factors that should determine price is too distributed for any one human or group of humans to internalize. The only way to distribute this information is to allow price signals between individuals to determine prices. Again, some people, through concerted effort, can temporarily cheat the system, whether it be top-down or bottom-up. The difference is that a bottom-up system does a much better job of allowing people who see an opportunity to take advantage of an improperly priced good to correct this imbalance much sooner.
    See I knew there would be someone on here who could explain all this stuff better than me. Well done.
    Do you listen to Russ Robert's podcast, Econtalk? I have a feeling you would like it a lot.
    I can't say I have. To be honest I'm not much of a economics person though I've taken the basic Micro/Macro courses in first year uni.

  • triclops41triclops41 Member Posts: 202
    TJ_Hooker said:

    Ward said:

    @TJ_Hooker Do you think that most people in positions of great power and political influence are sincere and benevolent and have YOUR best interests at heart? You're a fool if you actually believe that anyone with pockets lined with cash want to fix a global economic problem which thrives on allowing the rich to stay rich and never give anything out.

    I didn't realize that economists are all a bunch of elite fat cats.
    Ward said:

    It's not pretentious to offer my two cents and you're a little man to be so offended that I try to voice my opinions after watching the presidential election and relating it to our situation here overseas.

    1) I never said I was offended, just that I found it silly.
    2) You're right that you have every right to voice your opinion, and doing so doesn't make you pretentious. What I find pretentious is that you present these opinions as if they were fact, something you seem to do somewhat regularly, at least on these forums.
    It is important to remember all the times someone mistook something you wrote to have a tone you didn't intend. Assume he meant nothing by it. I have been on both ends of this misunderstanding soooooooooooooo many times.

  • WardWard Member Posts: 1,305
    @TJ_Hooker A lot of them are. Why do you think that so many businessmen go into politics? Selfish interest, that is why.

    Most of the people who study the economy for a living are no doubt in the pockets of those who have interest in how it can be manipulated for their benefit. I'm sure there aren't a lot of freelance economists going around telling the world how to fix the problem. Again there aren't plenty of benevolent people working for your interests, just selfish individuals.

    I find it pretentious the way people discussed social/political/equality here. When I post I do not post to enforce my own political alignment (I have none), superiority or justification of myself to complete strangers. That is what most of the people on this have done. So don't tell me about pretentious when you reply to this thread assuming I'm here to rub your face in my opinion.

  • triclops41triclops41 Member Posts: 202
    elminster said:


    elminster said:

    Ward said:

    @elminster I disagree man. When the system is built to decide what stuff costs depending on the people's demand, it's open to basic price manipulations.

    Let me give you an example. Runescape (a game I used to play on the internet) took out the ability to freely trade items between you and other people and forced you to participate in the 'Grand Exchange'.

    Now the Grand Exchange was a system where items were set at a 'market value' and gave you the ability to purchase items slightly above or below market value as long as somebody else is selling it for the price you want it.

    This system was manipulated by people in clans who purposely bought out very popular items, causing the price to skyrocket, hoarding them as demand increases, then DUMPING them back into the market for huge money.

    Can the real economy not be manipulated in the same way by creating FAKE demand for things people want to buy?

    Those manipulations certainly can happen, but acting as if having a powerful single entity decide on price doesn't have those very same drawbacks plus more is incorrect.
    Price Controls are what you are talking about. And in every single case where price controls happen in the real world, you get two things; shortages and a massive black market. Whether it is Nixon's gasoline policies, the entire soviet economy, or rent controls all over the world, you get very serious negative influences.
    It sounds to me like you have genuine concerns about real world problems, but we disagree that centralizing authority would improve the situation.

    The economic calculation problem is the theory that explains why a free market is, by far, the best way to determine prices. Knowledge of the factors that should determine price is too distributed for any one human or group of humans to internalize. The only way to distribute this information is to allow price signals between individuals to determine prices. Again, some people, through concerted effort, can temporarily cheat the system, whether it be top-down or bottom-up. The difference is that a bottom-up system does a much better job of allowing people who see an opportunity to take advantage of an improperly priced good to correct this imbalance much sooner.
    See I knew there would be someone on here who could explain all this stuff better than me. Well done.
    Do you listen to Russ Robert's podcast, Econtalk? I have a feeling you would like it a lot.
    I can't say I have. To be honest I'm not much of a economics person though I've taken the basic Micro/Macro courses in first year uni.
    It is not nearly as boring as one might assume. He gets good guests, really strives to be fair and educational, and covers topics of current interest. He is a professor at George Mason University. His last three podcasts were about health care, hurricane sandy/shortages/rationing, and public pensions. I learn a lot because there is no yelling, he gets experts on, often who disagree with him, and he does not act as if he knows everything already.
    My podcast diet is almost entirely video games and computer hardware, but Econtalk and Bombcast are the 2 podcasts I look forward to the most.

    elminster
  • vorticanvortican Member Posts: 206

    @Vortican

    Hmmm. We are obviously on different continents (figuratively) in economical policy, but you have several interesting points. I'll respond to some of what you said.

    But anyway, to the here-and-now: I get the impression that you are talking about a american reality - or at least a big country. What if democratc processes/government was more local? Small countries such as Iceland, Switzerland and Sweden are pretty well run, no?

    I'd definitely agree that in smaller countries, it's possible that different systems might work better or worse to a degree purely by judging based on the number of people affected. It's a truism that a smaller country is inherently easier to manage, which also explains why subsidiarity (the idea that the smallest unit of authority ought to handle most matters) is so important. Local governance works best.


    And what constitutes efficent governing? Yes, non-democracies may be more able to make big decisions but I would say that these decisions often are wrong, and fail to take into account all the details, which may destroy people's lives. China is a capitalist dicatorship IMO and they continously disregard it's inhabitants, at least those who arent "ming-chinese". Horrible inequality. But impressive economic growth. I believe democratic decisions are better beacuse they have undergone alot of scrutiny. I think people are alienated to the state becasue the majority is *not* running the show, but the wealthy and influential. Societies needs to implement systems that makes sure that money doesnt buy too much power - for instance strong unions.

    I've found that historically in the USA, government in general destroys lives because of the unintended and unforeseen consequences of those decisions, which would ascribe the same failings of non-democracies to the republican democracy in America. In China, it's intentional as the party in power ignores the wishes and state of the poor, while in America that scrutiny you mention still fails to protect individuals from the unfortunate consequences of government decisions. It hasn't mattered in our history whether the government was run by statesmen, lawyers, corporate puppets, or bankers. In the end, they don't have perfect information. They don't even have accurate information because it's impossible to summarize an economy of over 300 million people into a coherent set of rules that equally treats everyone. Hence, it's impossible to manage such an economy and any decision they make is going to have unintended consequences for someone and because the effects spread through such a large economy, there's always a serious problem which results from those decisions, which begets more decisions meant to correct prior mistakes, and so on and so on. While the wealthy and influential do exert undue influence in government, it is precisely because national government has the power to influence local matters so much that the effects are felt by all Americans. Money couldn't buy much if the feds didn't have the power they have to influence what goes on in the daily lives of Americans, which is why the system was setup as it was originally conceived. It's only through distortion, manipulation, and the downright ignorance of what our Constitution says that it's become such a problem. It's up to local units of government, and the people, to insist on a change.


    And I did not mean to vilify business owners and others. I am talking about the system here. Capitalism IS governed by profits. The way I see it, in a more market-driven society capitalists will have more power, which equals lower wages to working class -> profits. The working class and much of the middle class will have to compete with each other for jobs by working for bearly livable wages.

    This is not because capitalists are evil, but because they want to make money. I do not think individuals are able to make decisions that are better for society when their own wealth is at risk.

    I think the opposite is true. Capitalism increases the standard of living and wealth of every member better than any other system has. The American standard of living has consistently been higher, even despite our resistance to embrace truly free capitalism, than any other nation. The reason we now have problems with middle-class wages is because of a reluctance to let capitalism function as it should and preferring to rely on government to solve problems that the market can solve. We've virtually abandoned capitalism in the most critical markets for a society: healthcare, education, food distribution, communications, self-defense. By ceding these responsibilities to the government in part but still trying to pretend that we're operating in a free market, we've created for ourselves a perfectly perverted system which benefits the rich and the public sector at the expense of everyone else (mostly middle class and poor people). The reason the middle class is suffering is because we've allowed politicians to take advantage of incentives given to them by rich interests and craft legislation which benefits certain segments of society at the expense of everyone else, thereby diverting resources into sectors where it's not beneficial to society as a whole. That's why we have a monstrously ineffective healthcare and educational system, and a military which is all over the world but which makes us more vulnerable to attack and generates the very enemies against which we purport to defend. It's a horrible system that is exactly the sort of thing our founders wished to prevent by limiting the power of the national government and it's a shame we've all but given up on it.
    Lemernis said:

    The rich certainly do not deserve to be demonized as a class of people. And a lot of the points made by Ayn Rand are true, imho. Capitalist innovators/risktakers are the ones that make things happen in our world, and create most of the jobs for society. They should not be overtaxed. Nor should their enterprises be over-regulated.

    But they should pay their fair share of taxes. The corporation itself certainly should not pay no taxes, as sometimes happens for large corporations. Corporations and the people who run them should not be allowed to essentially do as they will with no other concern than profit as the bottom line.

    The saying "to those who much is given, much is expected," to me, really means that if you have a strong influence and impact on society, or upon many people's lives, you also have a moral and ethical responsibility to at least do no harm. That at a minimum! And ideally you should want make the world a better place in some tangible ways for others. Not behave selfishly and greedily. Not that there should be a law to ever enforce the latter. But there's plenty of people sitting on boards of directors for major corporations or other institutions who are singularly driven by the profit margins and cost. It is their right, and I do not challenge that. But I guess as society evolves we can only hope to change what motivates people and why.

    @Lemernis, I think this meme of the rich "paying their fair share" has now been appropriated based on the idea that because some people have more than others, they should be forced to contribute more than others. Isn't that the basic tenet of Marxism? "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs!" This supposes that individuals own nothing and everything they produce must be distributed across society to benefit everyone, completely obliterating property rights entirely. If one looks at the facts in the USA, the rich already pay MORE than their fair share, paying a disproportionate amount of the taxes which support government that spends far more on the poor than the rich. Almost half of the population pays no federal income taxes at all. The idea that corporations and the people that run them should not be allowed to pursue profit as an objective also goes directly against the premise of capitalism.

    What concerns me most is that profit is looked at as some dirty word and a gluttonous, reprehensible concept. Profit and self-interest (not to be confused with greed) are the means by which we transform our labor into the things we need and want to survive, and add to the world. Those who pursue profit are not only enriching themselves but also serving us all by providing us with goods we want at the prices we want and enabling us to benefit society at large by combining what we produce with what they produce and producing new stuff for everybody. The engine of free economics is what has produced (despite government attempts to control the process) the greatest achievements mankind has ever seen and rich folks and corporations have contributed to those successes in ways most Americans don't even consider. Americans are more than willing to recognize individual achievement, but when it comes to corporations and the consolidated and organized relationships which lend to that creation, they take a different tone.

    I'll agree that ethically, humans should be concerned not only with themselves but with benefiting society as well. It's just that we don't need government to enforce those concepts and pursuing profit does not preclude those objectives. Rather, it assists them. Let's also remember that the loopholes which benefit the rich and corporations did not magically appear but were granted by politicians who pander for votes and which any free market capitalist would oppose because they destabilize the organic relationship between free actors in the economy, benefiting only a select group of people at the expense of another group.

  • theJoshFrosttheJoshFrost Member Posts: 171
    Oh look. Another politic thread.

    AristilliusLemernis
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982

    Oh look. Another politic thread.

    Just back away @theJoshFrost. I'll cover you while you make a run for it. :p

    AristilliustheJoshFrostLemernis
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    edited November 2012
    @Ward
    While I still think you may be wrongly treating some of your opinions as facts, I realized that:
    1) I'm probably taking this too seriously
    2) My previous posts were needlessly confrontational
    3) I probably should have just ignored your thread, rather than post on it just to tell you I don't like it.

    So I think I'll just shut up for now, but first I just wanted to respond to this post:
    Ward said:

    @TJ_Hooker I should point out that you make it sound like my idea is unique, original and somehow my tiny pee-brain invented a brand new way to fix the economy. It's not a new idea, taxing the rich isn't a new idea, it's a great idea that rich people don't want for themselves.

    First off, I didn't mean to imply that you're stupid, and if it sounded that way then I'm sorry. If anything I meant to say that you may not know as much as you think, and that could be said about just about anyone, myself included.

    Second, because most of your argument is roughly in line with standard liberal views, and being mostly liberal myself, I actually agree with some of the things you say. Specifically with having services be publicly owned. Where I live (Manitoba, Canada) we have
    Public healthcare (like the rest of Canada)
    Manitoba Hydro (publicly owned electric company)
    Manitoba Public Insurance (publicly owned insurance company that provides car insurance, maybe other kinds too)
    Probably other publicly owned service providers that I'm forgetting.

    The healthcare is great. Manitoba being publicly owned (combined with Manitoba's potential for hydroelectric generation) lets us have some of the lowest rates on the continent I believe. For the insurance: a couple years ago MPI realized that they had overestimated the cost of providing insurance and charged people too much, so everyone who had insured a vehicle with them that year got refunded a portion of what they paid. I'd like to see a privately owned company do that.

    Edit: Manitoba Hydro being publicly owned...

    Post edited by TJ_Hooker on
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,982
    edited November 2012
    TJ_Hooker said:

    @Ward
    While I still think you may be wrongly treating some of your opinions as facts, I realized that:
    1) I'm probably taking this too seriously
    2) My previous posts were needlessly confrontational
    3) I probably should have just ignored your thread, rather than post on it just to tell you I don't like it.

    So I think I'll just shut up for now, but first I just wanted to respond to this post:

    Ward said:

    @TJ_Hooker I should point out that you make it sound like my idea is unique, original and somehow my tiny pee-brain invented a brand new way to fix the economy. It's not a new idea, taxing the rich isn't a new idea, it's a great idea that rich people don't want for themselves.

    First off, I didn't mean to imply that you're stupid, and if it sounded that way then I'm sorry. If anything I meant to say that you may not know as much as you think, and that could be said about just about anyone, myself included.

    Second, because most of your argument is roughly in line with standard liberal views, and being mostly liberal myself, I actually agree with some of the things you say. Specifically with having services be publicly owned. Where I live (Manitoba, Canada) we have
    Public healthcare (like the rest of Canada)
    Manitoba Hydro (publicly owned electric company)
    Manitoba Public Insurance (publicly owned insurance company that provides car insurance, maybe other kinds too)
    Probably other publicly owned service providers that I'm forgetting.

    The healthcare is great. Manitoba being publicly owned (combined with Manitoba's potential for hydroelectric generation) lets us have some of the lowest rates on the continent I believe. For the insurance: a couple years ago MPI realized that they had overestimated the cost of providing insurance and charged people too much, so everyone who had insured a vehicle with them that year got refunded a portion of what they paid. I'd like to see a privately owned company do that.
    Off the top of my head you forgot the CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation - deals with government backed mortgage insurance),and the CBC (which is only good for hockey :p).

    TJ_Hooker
  • vorticanvortican Member Posts: 206
    TJ_Hooker said:

    For the insurance: a couple years ago MPI realized that they had overestimated the cost of providing insurance and charged people too much, so everyone who had insured a vehicle with them that year got refunded a portion of what they paid. I'd like to see a privately owned company do that.

    FYI, plenty of auto insurance companies in the US do that as well. They advertise it all the time. However, it isn't because they charged too much per se. The safe drivers who aren't driving up the costs for everyone else get discounts and a demonstrated safe driving record earns you a rebate check.

    booinyoureyes
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    edited November 2012
    @vortican
    Our insurance premiums are adjusted based on your driving record. Having the highest possible rating reduces your premium by a third. Having a bad rating increases your rates. The rebate I was talking about was something completely seperate, and in addition to, incentives for safe driving.

  • triclops41triclops41 Member Posts: 202
    TJ_Hooker said:

    @vortican
    Our insurance premiums are adjusted based on your driving record. Having the highest possible rating reduces your premium by a third. Having a bad rating increases your rates. The rebate I was talking about was something completely seperate, and in addition to, incentives for safe driving.

    How long has your insurance been doing those discounts based on a good record?

  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    @triclops41
    I'm pretty sure they've been doing it for quite some time. Long before I started driving anyways. Why do you ask?

  • triclops41triclops41 Member Posts: 202
    TJ_Hooker said:

    @triclops41
    I'm pretty sure they've been doing it for quite some time. Long before I started driving anyways. Why do you ask?

    just wondering whether it came to US from Canada, vice versa, or came from somewhere else completely. guess I'm off to Google to find out.

Sign In or Register to comment.