3 ms·
Investors are supposed to watch out for and grow the money under their trust. If one of them considers that involves throwing in different questions to find ou
by rudyfink 18y ago
Investors are supposed to watch out for and grow the money under their trust. If one of them considers that involves throwing in different questions to find out more about the people and/or product asking for his money, I don't see how that is unethical.
We have countless articles on this system that praise alternative approaches to dealing with markets. This post is entirely about part of one individual's alternative approach.
- pg 18y agoIf one of them considers that involves throwing in different question to find out more about the people and/or product asking for his money, I don't see how that is unethical. Maybe that's clearer if we use a description more precise than "throwing in different questions:" lying.
- dcminter 18y agoEven if one takes an amoral view of it, there is a risk that the people you were investing in will now waste time investigating a non-existent technology. Or that they will incorrectly discount things that you say in the future. But then that's one of the reasons that lying is so often a bad strategy in the first place.
- rudyfink 18y agoI think they'd pretty quickly find out that Arthur Andersen is effectively a defunct entity. I suppose it is an "in joke" like the "thousands of case studies" part of his question. You are correct that some time, though probably not too much, would be wasted in discovering the above. I do see your point. I felt that was part of the author's point too; "lying is so often a bad strategy". Perhaps the common ground between our approaches to the article is that he should not be surprised that his bullshit question elicited a bullshit response.