Talk:Moral hazard

message: "Many, perhaps most, police investigations of arson are the result of leads from suspicious insurance adjusters."   I'm curious - where was this taken from? I'm not doubting its validity, just pondering upon the origins of its source.
------
I do not understand. Please give an example of a moral hazard.
----
Re: "It could be argued along the same lines that military spending increases the risk of war."  I don't see this logic, and don't see how it fits under moral hazard.  It would make sense if (a) the military was given money based on how many wars it fought, and (b) it was the military which decided whether to go to war.  But (a) is not what is said-- it's not military spending that matters, but rather the tying of spending to war (in the same way that welfare is tied to number of children); to illustrate, even if military spending were presently zero, the incentive for war would exist.  As for (b), it is just false.  The military is given orders by the government, not vice versa.  The exception would be the case of a military gov't, but in that case it pretty much can take as much money as it wants anyway.  Perhaps one could argue that the military once deployed might try to provoke a greater conflict to get more money, though this really seems a stretch.  I think this example needs to be struck or greatly retooled. -- VV 21:39, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The purchase of weapons is a sunk cost that removes or reduces one disincentive to belligerent and provocative behaviour.  We got all of these bombs and guns lying around.  Do we just let 'em rust, or do we shoot something?  OTOH, if they weren't already stockpiled, they would have to first be acquired before a belligerent plan could be carried out.  So even if the army is not paid on a piecework basis, and even if it is civilian leaders who decide whether to go to war or not, the purchase of weapons still creates a moral hazard of warlike activity.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 23:53, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Arson

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moral hazard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160513150957/http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?id=1gu8eqn802j62rxk to http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?id=1gu8eqn802j62rxk
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928060123/http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=500&itemID=18020&URL=About%20Us%2FHistory to http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=500&itemID=18020&URL=About%20Us%2FHistory
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came to this Wikipedia page to get a basic idea of the odd term "moral hazard" when I saw it mentioned in a magazine.  The introductory paragraphs and the Example here are mostly useless.  I eventually got somewhat of a handle on the concept after reviewing multiple pages suggested by a Google search.  I'm not in a position to rewrite anything on the page but I hope someone who both understands the concept and can communicate it to the layperson will do so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:648D:D753:3EA1:A647 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poor article