In reply to hamsforlegs:
> There is no 'lying' about the price. The price is just the amount you end up paying for it - it's not fixed by some exogenous process and then simply administered. Commerce itself decides the price.
This is a really interesting point. The price
theoretically as you say is not fixed but is the amount you end up paying. However, in our culture we make many implicit assumptions about price. We assume that we operate in an open market and that the price we see on a label has been arrived at through the process of commerce: we don't barter in shops. The rules about when we do and don't barter are subtle and unwritten. This gives leeway for obfuscation and manipulation.
I do take your point that "lying" is not strictly the correct term. "Taking the piss massively" would be fair, as would "attempting to deceive into paying an unreasonable cost". The deceit is the
presentation that the price is fixed, and it being hundreds of pounds above what the insurer will settle on.
Well, we all know we can go on a price comparison site. Yes, we all know that the market involves a game of cat and mouse in which the vendor obfuscates the price.
> I think there is dishonesty in insurance companies' approach of offering cover crafted in such a way that it will almost never pay out. TheDrunkenBears has described how explicit this is across large parts of the industry. This is really a collective action problem, since most people will tend to rail against paying a little more to indemnify someone else, even though we will be the 'someone else' at some point in the future. I tend to think that insurers get away with this due to a general collapse in public understanding of collective systems and their value.
Absolutely agree.
> Your more general point is a good one though.
> I do think we are too slow to hold organisations accountable as collections of people making decisions about their actions. You see this in the tax debate: 'You can't make a moral argument - they are companies minimising costs within the law, so change the law'.
> Well.... 'changing the law' has proved inadequate due to the short termism of senior executives and the investors around them. They prefer the comfort of professional tax planning to the complexity of making long term investments in the society around them. It's much, much easier to do, involves hiring lots of familiar buddies from other firms, and gives measurable short term outcomes and so higher bonuses.
> So why not be clearer - people leading organisations that engage in such pathetic and unethical behaviour are lazy, venal and unhelpful. They shouldn't be offered the best table in the restaurant, lordships, and a fawning tug of the hair. They should be treated with the disdain served up to other anti-social folk. They might be 'within the law', but we should all exercise our right to tell them to p**s off, both through our consumer decisions and, where possible, in more personal and direct ways.
Hear hear!
Post edited at 12:51