We are constantly bombarded with political promises that promise dramatic life improvement for us and/or relief from our troubles. These promises all come to us saying in essence that "if you vote for me/us then productivity will improve and you will live a happier life". In short, the promise is in one word - Nirvana. We also get pundits telling us that we will be better off if we vote for X instead of Y. Sometimes these pundits give us their reasoning - which is often faulty, but in the end simply goes back to the promises of Nirvana.
Don't buy it!
I was reminded of these promises and pundits this morning when I saw a newspaper article that reported a very prominent former (now retired) banker, Ron Harford, whose opinions I have always respected. Mr. Harford was reported as saying that if you have a choice in voting for a crook or a mook, then it is better to vote for the crook. Now, I can understand his reasoning: while you can be fairly certain that the crook will steal, the mook simply won't have any idea on how to fix things and because of his/her inefficiencies, inabilities and total incompetence, the mook will simply make things worse. The crook, on the other hand, while stealing, will probably do somethings right, and therefore we will all benefit - not as much as could if the crook wasn't a crook, but still we would get some benefit. The erstwhile Mr. Harford did not identify anybody who he thought might be a crook or a mook.
So, in keeping with the erstwhile Mr. Harford's non-identification of anybody, I have only one question for him: what if the crook is also a mook?
No comments:
Post a Comment