19 
being included in such investment. If it is attempted also to cover 
the loss of prospective profits by partial damage to a crop promising 
a yield above the average, the cost is sure to be prohibitive. 
If insurance consisting of the collection of premiums and the dis- 
tribution of such premiums to those incurring a loss under the insur- 
ance contract could be conducted without expense, it might be wise to 
insure against every conceivable source of loss, thereby practically 
equalizing and standardizing the income. It is, of course, no more 
possible to achieve this than it is for a locomotive to turn into 
tractive power all the energy contained in the coal that it consumes. 
A greater or less proportion of the amount contributed by the in- 
sured as premiums must be used to meet the expense of conducting 
the business, or, to carry out the figure, to overcome the frictional 
element of the insurance machine. It is, therefore, possible in the 
long run for an insurance company to pay back in indemnities to its 
members or patrons only a materially smaller amount than the sum 
collected from the insured in the form of premiums. 
The important fact to be made clear may be further explained by 
pointing out that, covering a period of years, a farmer ordinarily 
secures a greater net income by carrying his own risk than will 
accrue to him if he purchases any form of crop insurance from year 
to year. This is true, however, only on condition that no loss suf- 
fered is sufficiently serious to cause him to lose his farm or to handi- 
cap him in his farming operations. It must be concluded, therefore, 
that insurance is to be recommended against such crop losses as would 
seriously cripple the farmer. On the other hand, it is a form of 
extravagance to insure against such losses as he can bear without 
undue inconvenience. 
It may be laid down as another principle that the ideal crop in- 
surance will, to the extent indicated, provide protection against all 
unavoidable hazards to which the crop is subject. If one of these 
hazards is left unprovided for in the insurance contract, the insured 
may lose his crop from that hazard and find himself worse off for 
having carried insurance by the amount of premium paid or premium 
obligation assumed. 
In the final analysis, there is little more logic in carrying crop in- 
surance against certain specified hazards with the insured carrying 
the total risk against other hazards than there would be in taking 
out a life insurance policy against certain specified diseases. The 
thing that the buyer of life insurance seeks is the positive assurance 
that in the case of his premature death the economic loss sustained 
by his dependents will to a greater or less extent be made good by 
the insurance. Similarly, the thing needed by the producer of crops 
is the assurance that if these crops fail to produce a reasonable har- 
vest, no matter what the cause of such failure may be, assuming 
