Your hypothesis suffers from a logical fallacy called "excluding the middle". Your entire argument (which is the refutation of the hypothesis) suffers from both "strawman arguments" and "argument by ridicule). You are a walking textbook example of how to now rationally present a case.
Let me rephrase the above poster's question then - instead of working for you, would you want trump to invest your money? better yet - would you lend money to trump?
... collateral and proper agreement... I guess you've never had to contend with collateral value risk, custodial risk, judgement uncertainty, and bounderline fraud.
The only reason the insurance companies are using this pricing method is for increased profits not to offset costs. You really don't know insurance companies work, everything they do is for profits no matter what they say. Nothing wrong with that except when they lie (as they often do) as they are doing with rating of lower credit rating customers. A better way to judge a driver is on his past driving record, wouldn't you agree, I knew you would.
And he's still a billionaire and I'm willing to bet anything that you're not. The system is designed to reward those who take risks. The banks have obviously taken advantage (i.e. bailouts). So why can't you and I? If it's okay for GM to declare bankruptcy, I should be able to declare bankruptcy when I lose my job.
Trump is a billionaire? .... that's news to everyone on earth. But aside from that, what exactly are you arguing with me about? You *can* declare bankruptcy. But there are certain limits to what you can do in a bankruptcy because there are so many of *you* (as in, people). So, unless there are some limits to it, then a lot of lending to individuals won't be done. The power-to-be, rightfully or wrongly, decided that it's in the public interest to promote such lendings. Hence, limits were placed. Again, what exactly are you arguing with *me* about?