保険

解説

付記

保険外交員と家主の対話 保険外交員「これは立派なお宅ですな。ぜひ火災保険に入りませんか」 家主「いいですよ。ただし掛け金は安く。 御社の計算どおりの時期に火事になったとしても、 私が払う総額が保険金より少なくなるようにしてください」 保険外交員「それは無理です。必ずこちらが得になるように設定します」 家主「それなら私が入る理由は？」 保険外交員「家はいつ燃えるかわかりません。スミスさんの家だって――」 家主「やめてくれ。逆にブラウンさんやジョーンズさん、ロビンソンさんの家は無事だったろう」 保険外交員「……やめてください！」 家主「要するに、あなたは“家が自分の予想より早く燃える”と私に賭けさせたいんだ。 私が自分の家を長持ちさせられないと賭けるようなものだ」 保険外交員「でも無保険で燃えたら全損ですよ」 家主「いやいや。御社の計算では、燃える頃には私は掛け金を貯めていて、 それは保険金以上になる。 もし予想より早く燃えたら？　私が負担できないなら、あなた方はどうやって払う？」 保険外交員「ほかの契約者の利益で埋め合わせます」 家主「なら私も他人の損を負担してることになるな。 他人の家が早く燃える可能性も私の家と同じくらいある。 つまり“顧客から取る金は払う金より多い”と見込んでるんだろう？」 保険外交員「ええ、当然です。そうでなければ――」 家主「なら信用できん。全体として必ず損をするのなら、 個々人にとっても損する可能性が高い。 結局その積み重ねが、会社の利益になるだけだ」 保険外交員「否定はしませんが……このパンフレットを――」 家主「結構！」 保険外交員「ですが掛け金を払わなければ、その分を浪費してしまいませんか？ 保険は“節約の動機”になるんです」 家主「他人の金を預かって節約を説くのは保険だけじゃない。 ただの“慈善事業”だな。 まあ、その点ではご立派だ――哀れな対象からの敬意として受け取ってくれ」

管理人コメント

Original

An ingenious modern game of chance in which the player is permitted to enjoy the comfortable conviction that he is beating the man who keeps the table.

Additional notes

INSURANCE AGENT: My dear sir, that is a fine house—pray let me insure it. HOUSE OWNER: With pleasure. Please make the annual premium so low that by the time when, according to the tables of your actuary, it will probably be destroyed by fire I will have paid you considerably less than the face of the policy. INSURANCE AGENT: O dear, no—we could not afford to do that. We must fix the premium so that you will have paid more. HOUSE OWNER: How, then, can I afford that? INSURANCE AGENT: Why, your house may burn down at any time. There was Smith's house, for example, which— HOUSE OWNER: Spare me—there were Brown's house, on the contrary, and Jones's house, and Robinson's house, which— INSURANCE AGENT: Spare me! HOUSE OWNER: Let us understand each other. You want me to pay you money on the supposition that something will occur previously to the time set by yourself for its occurrence. In other words, you expect me to bet that my house will not last so long as you say that it will probably last. INSURANCE AGENT: But if your house burns without insurance it will be a total loss. HOUSE OWNER: Beg your pardon—by your own actuary's tables I shall probably have saved, when it burns, all the premiums I would otherwise have paid to you—amounting to more than the face of the policy they would have bought. But suppose it to burn, uninsured, before the time upon which your figures are based. If I could not afford that, how could you if it were insured? INSURANCE AGENT: O, we should make ourselves whole from our luckier ventures with other clients. Virtually, they pay your loss. HOUSE OWNER: And virtually, then, don't I help to pay their losses? Are not their houses as likely as mine to burn before they have paid you as much as you must pay them? The case stands this way: you expect to take more money from your clients than you pay to them, do you not? INSURANCE AGENT: Certainly; if we did not— HOUSE OWNER: I would not trust you with my money. Very well then. If it is certain, with reference to the whole body of your clients, that they lose money on you it is probable, with reference to any one of them, that he will. It is these individual probabilities that make the aggregate certainty. INSURANCE AGENT: I will not deny it—but look at the figures in this pamph— HOUSE OWNER: Heaven forbid! INSURANCE AGENT: You spoke of saving the premiums which you would otherwise pay to me. Will you not be more likely to squander them? We offer you an incentive to thrift. HOUSE OWNER: The willingness of A to take care of B's money is not peculiar to insurance, but as a charitable institution you command esteem. Deign to accept its expression from a Deserving Object.