4 ms·
Not by having them do the exact thing we pay them not to do. In the EC case, we pay them to develop bird habitat, yet that habitat doesn't get developed. If we'
by roel_v 7y ago
Not by having them do the exact thing we pay them not to do. In the EC case, we pay them to develop bird habitat, yet that habitat doesn't get developed. If we'd pay people to not grow palm trees, we expect that there isn't some metric loophole like that makes it so that we don't achieve the goals set out.
I mean, it's a matter of clearly defining goals and KPIs of course, but that's easier said than done.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> having them do the exact thing we pay them not to do. Well you left that bit out of your comment! You just said they took the money and managed to make money with their land anyway while meeting the agreement, which sounded like a perfect situation!
- jasonkester 7y ago> Well you left that bit out of your comment! It’s funny watching people talk past each other on the internet. You actually quoted that bit of his comment above.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 7y agoI thought 'the other' meant an unrelated thing, so it wasn't clear.
- roel_v 7y agoI said the other thing profitable, i.e. the thing we don't want them to do, I didn't say another.