[FoRK] Malthusian machinations
jbone at place.org
Wed Jun 16 22:15:41 PDT 2010
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 16, 2010, at 6:30 PM, "Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo" <ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Even when it's mostly in the hands of profit-motivated folks with no ethics and minimal accountability?
There's so much blatantly obvious bias and unteasable entanglements in that sentence that I won't even attempt to debate it.
Three choices today: public sector, private sector, or none at all. I'll take the lesser of three "evils" and you can guess which one that will be, probably. In case you can't: none at all is existentially unacceptable, and public sector management too inept, ineffective, and inefficient. Give it to the appropriate privates with reasonable third party safeguards. (It's the latter job that generally fails. Guess whose job THAT is under today's false systematic dichotomy...)
> Due to the whole motherhood issue of feeding the starving kiddies in the Third World, there is as little moral hazard associated with risk-taking in GM today as there is in the financial industry. Or the energy sector. In my view.
> If there was some moral hazard involved
> I would be with you in the cheering section. However....
I don't think that term means what you think it means.
Moral hazard is the *cause* of many problems we face today and the very thing you are objecting to implicitly in the first sentence (though in it you are incorrectly asserting that certain behaviors necessarily imply moral hazard.) Never something to cheer; always a problem.
More information about the FoRK