This article in the WSJ caught my attention, not because of the main thrust but because of this opening section:
It wasn't so long ago that insurers were pronouncing terrorism "uninsurable." But ask any insurer: Aon's Paul Bassett recently noted that the global war on terror had greatly reduced the threat of megaplots on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.
Yes, suicide bombers and car bombs remain a threat, but not to the industry's capital base. Hurricanes are the new "uninsurable" now.
One reason for being on the offensive against Radical Islamists and their enablers is to reduce their effectiveness in supporting cells that might hatch a megaplot here at home. Critics who are sure that this policy is wrong exhibit thinking that is at odds with people who obsess about that risk for a living. Who's view would you lean towards: someone with an emotion laden approach (likely a sufferer of BDS) or a professional trying to take a clear eyed approach?
1 comment:
Good post Howard. The professional approach, of course, is the correct approach here. But most antiwar people aren't looking to the insurance profession for their cues, but the international "law and justice" professions as embodied by the UN, the EU and NGOs like Doctors Without Borders. The problem with this "profession" is that it is not accountable for the success or failure of its practice, as insurance companies are.
Post a Comment