Risk taking may be a self-explanatory concept but that doesn’t mean that everyone understands it. I would submit that the people who don’t comprehend it represent a huge chunk of the populace.
Furthermore, I posit that,
Ye who does not understand risk taking is doomed to lifetime of ignorance and underperformace.
My schtick of course is economic illiteracy. While I have been studying this I have noticed several common threads among the econo-illiterate. Sure they don’t understand supply, demand, taxation, and the like, but at root I believe that they have no experience with or comprehension of risk taking.
When they take a job with a 35 mile commute and buy a 14 mpg car, they don’t realize what $4 gasoline would do to that decision.
Solution – complain about evil oil companies.
When they buy a dozen oranges, get home, and find the taste not to their liking…..
Econo-Illiterate Solution – they return the fruit, no matter how much a hassle.
Even Seinfeld understood the risks of this:
Seinfeld – I don’t return fruit. Fruit is a gamble. I know that going in.
When they buy a computer, they expect it to run flawlessly and forever no less. The Dell whiners are all over the internet. Their complaining illustrates three things:
1) Ignorance of how computers work. The hardware is manufactured by several different companies and has to interact with cutting edge (i.e. buggy) software. Problems should be expected, not startling.
2) Ignorance of how cheap computers are. PCs are probably ten times better than they were 5 years ago AND the price has gone from an average of $1,700 to around $1,000. But econo-illiterate consumers take the cheap price for granted and demand infallibility.
3) Ignorance of transactional realities and personal responsibilities. Like with fruit, buying anything is a gamble with the inherent possibility of loss/mistake. These Morons think that once they pay for a PC that they are suddenly entitled to a perfect level of performance and service. I doubt they get impeccable service at McDonalds but yet still go there. People just don’t want to accept any responsibility for their own purchase decisions. Maybe you shouldn’t have bought the cheapest machine they offered? Maybe you should have paid for the premium level of service? (I always do for computers.) Maybe you shouldn’t click on pop-up ads that are really spyware/virus traps? You screwed up your PC and then you tired to blame Dell.
Dell is of course, a big easy target but Morons love to categorically bash corporations.
The next time you hear someone inveigh against McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Dell Computer, Coco-Cola, Nike, Exxon, etc., ask them to explain to you exactly what a corporation is, how it functions, about its genesis as a business structure, and most importantly what is the historical record of corporations on raising standards of living worldwide.
I can almost guarantee you that they won't be able to answer your question with any factual coherence.
Corporations allow people to pool capital, limit liability, and take the economic risks needed to drive technological progress.
Without corporations there would be no iPods, no Starbucks lattes, food would be much more expensive (more people starving), medical care would be primitive by today's standards, and worldwide standards of living would be substantially lower.
When Morons can't understand the minor risks involved in buying fruit or a computer, they certainly can't be expected to understand the risks of something much more complicated like the War in Iraq.
First of all, anyone who thinks nothing should be endeavored without 100% chance of success is an Automatic Moron. There are certainly plenty of anti-war people of this mindset. And don't give me this crap about American lives at risk. Peoples lives were at risk on 9/11 before we were even in Iraq and will still be when we leave.
American Deaths over the Last Three Years Put in Perspective:
Auto Accidents - 120,000
Falling Down - 45,000
Poisoning - 27,000
Drowning - 12,000
War in Iraq - 2,300
The key thing about understanding risk is the cost/benefit analysis. To me, the Iraqi War is a risky venture - one where I think the possible benefits clearly outweigh the costs. I do not have a problem with people who disagree with my assessment. I have been wrong plenty of times in my life. But I do have a problem with specious dissent or arguments that don't recognize the risk-taking essence of the war.
Even if the war fails in its objectives, that doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong to attack in the first place.
Say half of the Pittsbugh Steelers team caught the flu and couldn't play in the Super Bowl and the Seattle Seahawks were still an underdog. You bet big on Seattle but the Steelers win and cover anyway. That does not mean you placed a poor bet. Adults play the odds and let the chips fall where they may. Children whine and complain after the fact.
What is that proverb? Something like your life is the sum of all the decisions you made thus far?
Back to these Risk Averse Morons.
It is one thing to understand some risks in life and then consciously opt to avoid them. For example, my stock and option trading is much much more subdued than it used to be. When I was single and in my early 20s I would risk massive amounts of money on single trades. If I lost, I had no problem going on a 6 month drinking bender while I dug out of the hole. Now with a family, I avoid such fence-swinging mostly to spare my family the emotional rollercoaster ride.
But the Risk Averse Morons don't understand and certainly don't appreciate risk-taking. Furthermore, they generally despise those that gamble - be they capitalists or politicians (think "cowboy").
You'll also notice that they tend to migrate to the secure taxpayer-subsidized jobs, insulating themselves from accountability, and cementing their own econo-illiteracy.
All the while they ignorantly enjoy the fruits of other risk takers.
As Colonel Jessup said...
Full transcript here.
No comments:
Post a Comment