> the spirit of Hanlon's razor, it's more likely that the managers are simply bad at their job. > In some sense, it doesn't even matter. If the manager is sacr

> the spirit of Hanlon's razor, it's more likely that the managers are simply bad at their job. > In some sense, it doesn't even matter. If the manager is sacrificing profit for a fuzzy feeling of domination, then he's doing a bad job at increasing profit. And if the business is in competition with another that doesn't succumb to that kind of error, then the market will make it very clear We have to be consistent in our views. In the first sentence, the Hanlon's razor applies but not in the second one? What if the market is inefficient and the manager sacrificing profit for a fuzzy feeling of domination actually comes ahead? Does the Hanlon's razor support that theory? In that case, how does this conversation proceed? I am (trying to) applying a consistent view - that there's always an objective function in a game and society is a game. Right now, you and I are playing a game - I'm trying to clarify my thoughts and so are you. My objective function is to test the clarity of my thoughts and the best way to go about it, I feel, is to discuss it with someone who holds a contrarian view. That said, I've been having a hard time doing that here on HN as once downvotes (which work like a silencing mechanism here) happen, I literally cant respond back until a few hours have passed since the last downvote. Don't hesitate to reach out over email. I am enjoying this exchange.