5 ms·

Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? I’m a firm believer in that. The clause was probably put in there so the lawyers c

Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? I’m a firm believer in that. The clause was probably put in there so the lawyers could bill more hours. I can easily imagine a legal firm noticing a drop in billable hours so they start reaching out to existing clients, throwing in a bit of fear, saying everyone is putting non-competes in their agreements you should too. Boom, all clients get billed extra that month, I wouldn’t call this incompetence, but greed

nonethewiser 3y ago
> Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? For businesses, which aim to make money, isnt that simply competence? Or greed when taken to an extreme. Basically “companies will act in their best interest.”
- malux85 3y ago
  No, that's too reductive - the behaviour is not solely explained by a unidimensional scalar like competence because there are actions that a greedy unethical competent company would take that another non-greedy ethical company would not take - so theres more dimensions than just competence.
  - fleischhauf 3y ago
    also, in case of the billable hours, the lawyers might do it due to monetary incentives, but subway might be malicious (or have other reasons to do it)
kuchenbecker 3y ago
Malux razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by Money.
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  Fleecing people for money is malicious though
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bastard_op 3y ago
I'm sure one can find plenty to say about this in the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition that probably sum up even our corporate insanity best. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition
fnord123 3y ago
> Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? Cui bono.
drhagen 3y ago
I always liked to phrase it as: "Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by incentives." People like Hanlon's razor because it still lets them insult people they don't like. "incompetent" and "stupid" work about as well as "malicious" and "evil". I don't think anyone will ever give a name to a statement so...unsatisfying.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? For businesses, which aim to make money, isnt that simply competence? Or greed when taken to an extreme. Basically “companies will act in their best interest.”

malux85 3y ago
No, that's too reductive - the behaviour is not solely explained by a unidimensional scalar like competence because there are actions that a greedy unethical competent company would take that another non-greedy ethical company would not take - so theres more dimensions than just competence.
- fleischhauf 3y ago
  also, in case of the billable hours, the lawyers might do it due to monetary incentives, but subway might be malicious (or have other reasons to do it)

kuchenbecker 3y ago

Malux razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by Money.

DangitBobby 3y ago
Fleecing people for money is malicious though

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bastard_op 3y ago

I'm sure one can find plenty to say about this in the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition that probably sum up even our corporate insanity best. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition

fnord123 3y ago

> Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? Cui bono.

drhagen 3y ago

I always liked to phrase it as: "Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by incentives." People like Hanlon's razor because it still lets them insult people they don't like. "incompetent" and "stupid" work about as well as "malicious" and "evil". I don't think anyone will ever give a name to a statement so...unsatisfying.