27

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way... " - Thomas Sowell

Posted by GaltsGulch 8 years, 3 months ago to The Gulch: General
32 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." - Thomas Sowell


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 18
    Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 3 months ago
    The professor has a fantastic knack of being able to get to the heart of the matter.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by hattrup 8 years, 3 months ago
      Totally agree - love this and other quotes by Sowell. I must make the time to read the books of his that I have - if only to see if I disagree with any of his observations - along with some expected inspiration.
      Even if I do, I am sure he is one of my favorites, and I consider myself fortunate he is motivated and talented enough to try and get more truth delivered to everyone.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 3 months ago
      Think it through, however, and you realize that the statement is hollow. It is true that where we are protected from the consequences of our actions, we are freer to act - for better or ill.

      I think of researchers who continue to be paid while following one blind alley after another. Contrast the entrepreneur who will put all the resources she can into an idea to make it work, versus the manager who will cut his losses to avoid going over a budget. It can be said that they both have different consequences. It might also be noted that they have different ways of avoiding consequences: the entrepreneur mortgages her home to keep her business going; the manager lays off staff to keep his budget in line.

      In a sense, we all seek to minimize the consequences of our actions. That's a savings account at a bank is for.

      If your next move - whatever it may be - could kill you, you might give it so much thought that you are paralyzed from any action at all.

      Sowell, of course, was referring to governments. But, they, too, do ultimately suffer the consequences of bad choices.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 3 months ago
        Hello MikeMarotta,
        Governments are not individuals and their demise is often followed by thunderous cheers, either for good or ill, as a new form takes shape. The impetus of a failing government is the folly of individuals not held responsible in any meaningful way for the consequences of their actions, thus providing incentive for risk, malfeasance and avarice, Were the consequences of failure as acute as they are in the private sector there would be a completely different paradigm. This seems so self evident to me as to be irrefutable. Even if it were not so. So what? It is still a stupid way to do things. I believe this is most evident among un-elected bureaucrats. It has been rightly said that they are who truly run things. As long as we do not elect people that will fire these people they are largely immune from their improprieties. Lois Lerner... Eric Holder... pick the head of almost any of the federal alphabet agencies... The worst that ever happens is they may resign with a pension.
        Respectfully,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 3 months ago
          ... or everyone in Congress... they pass laws that affect millions of citizens, but rarely include in their bills ANY reference to before-and-after "effectiveness testing"... i.e., did the bill achieve its promised goals?
          And sure as hell, ALL bills should include a sunset or 'self-destruct' clause if they can be Proven INeffective. It'll never happen, but I can dream of Critical Thinking, can't I? :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 3 months ago
    Sounds like the banking cartel and its federal reserve bank to me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 3 months ago
      And government in general. One more time I will say it is the reason that government must be kept small & limited.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by stargeezer 8 years, 3 months ago
        The federal government was never intended to grow into the monster we have today. That's why there was never a IRS or federal taxes envisioned for individual citizens. It was supposed to be a starved, emaciated rat that lived in dark places and stayed out of the sight of common men going about their daily activities. Instead, we have a 1200lb grizzly bear following us through every move we make each day, making each move as dangerous as if WE were a criminal. Oh,and the Grizzly is hungry and has a head ache too.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 3 months ago
        Really? Should police offices, judges, and juries, as well as all military personnel be held personally responsible for their actions? There can be so such thing as a "war crime" if war itself is a crime. We conveniently condemn the Nazis for "following orders" but who does not?

        Note that the "Oath Keepers" who claim to adhere only to the Constitution must of necessity be commissioned officers. Non-commissioned officers and mere enlistees (and draftees) must follow orders by their oaths.

        In fact, if we each took complete responsibility for all our outcomes, criminal law would evaporate. Being set up by a robber would be no different than being caught in a flood.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 3 months ago
          Of course they should. That is they only way to stop out of control actions. One only has to look at the actions of the judges and DA's in the Wisconsin John Doe investigations to understand the necessity of skin in the game.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 3 months ago
      Actually, it sounds like employment. In a perfectly free market society, it might be true that everyone would be an independent contractor. Employees might not exist.

      One of the arguments against corporations is that they shield individuals from the consequences of their actions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 3 months ago
        Employment? Perhaps in government or labor union run business or corrupt business where no one gets fired regardless, but not in what I think of as "normal" business. (I agree on the problem with corporation possibly shielding the guilty.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 8 years, 3 months ago
    Thomas Sowell is my hero. Sadly, too many in the black community likely do not even know his name. That is why black communities are going to Obama Hell. Sowell understands economics, reason and personal achievement. Better, he knows how to boil it down and express what he has discovered in a few well-chosen words. If only we had more like him the the classrooms across the country. Both black and white children need to hear what he has to say, else this country is finished - and the little entitlement brats will not like the world they called for.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 8 years, 3 months ago
    As usual! Thomas Sowell is spot on correct! If you have no skin in the game, what is your motivation of creating value, especially if you won't ever have to worry about losing your job over making stupid decisions!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 3 months ago
      It was said that the ancient Mayans played a kind of basketball game in which the losers were executed. That could only have been for some special ceremony - and it must have been a bloody match, considering the consequences.

      One reason that the Viet Minh defeated the Army of the South is that the officers from Saigon never risked losing. Losing a battle would be to lose "face." So, they never dared. OTOH, the Viet Minh learned from their mistakes.

      If you do not have the freedom to be wrong, you have no freedom at all.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 3 months ago
    They pay no price for hardly anything. If the act involved is so egregious that it cannot escape public outrage, then a convenient scapegoat is conjured up to pay the price.

    Thomas Sowell is one of the best minds writing today. I greatly admire him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
    nothing wrong with that statement. Quote of the year caliber. It does explain half the voters (moochers) but does not explain the other half unless it's the word stupid.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 3 months ago
      "We wont' get fooled again." Voting is a good example in support and against the proposition. Voters do not actually reap the consequences of their own actions, but the consequences of other people's actions.

      And elected officials can have good reasons for not following through on promises. In real life the job is different when you hold it. That is true of any job, in the private sector as well as the public sector.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 3 months ago
    And how would that apply to juries?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago
      It wouldn't . Under the old constitution and bill of rights it would be moot under cruel and unusual punishment if it went that far. More probably lack of probable cause would have it quashed to begin with. When coupled with presumption of innocence unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and a first amendment cite offered it would die before cruel and unusual became an issue.

      HOWEVER under Obamalaw all that's required is suspicion of or suspicion of support of with nothing further added and with all civil rights suspended. One of them is a jury trial.

      Ergo sum old law or new it would be an issue. What might be an issue if it could be proven is a thirty second trial with two verdicts. Paredon meaning to the wall for instant execution Desaparacida meaning sent to a re-education camp or whatever DHS is calling their concentration camps these days.

      Since New Years Eve the latter is more likely to happen than the former. With the majority of congressionals voting in favor.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 3 months ago
    I admire Tommy...someone who woke himself up and has been not just a great mentor (I also studied economics as a major)
    and example but has been actively articulating reason and rational thinking in response to the current paradigm.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo