Insuring Replaceable Possessions
研究发现，人们通常认为保险收入与用收入购买的物品等价，但实际中，未投保的可替代物品在损坏后不一定被替换，因为人们可能难以自掏腰包支付替换费用，且损失的收入效应可能使替换不划算，导致等价关系不成立。
Equivalencebetween insuring income and what is bought with income is commonly assumed. It seems to be implicitly held that uninsured but replaceable goods will always be replaced if they fail. This does not follow. People may have difficulty coming up with the money to pay for a replacement out of pocket. Also, the income effect of a loss may mean that replacement is not worthwhile. We show that as a result, equivalence breaks down. Both theory and evidence are provided. Implications include a tendency of empirical papers to overestimate risk aversion, a reason why demand for insurance increases with income, and the mistaken attribution of preference inconsistency.