I did not intend to insult or patronize anybody, my apologies if I have.
But I stand my ground. According to my observation, many colleagues tend to voice easy, quick and, strangely, almost always radical solutions for some of the world's biggest problems.
How intelligent is it to suggest these solutions ("clear for everybody with half a brain/pulse etc"), when the entire academic elite, incl nobel price laureates, ivy league professors, heads of state and their staff etc etc is divided?
There might be colleagues with exceptional careers in their former life around, in 15 years I have strangely never met one though. I think they are the exception of the rule, really. However, I am not suggesting we are not educated enough to form an opinion, of course not, but it is the certainty and the radical component which bothers me.
In our world, news is a commodity, produced to sell. The anger many feel in the current situation plus the urge for quick and just solutions is catered for by
the respective media ltds. We should refrain from simply parotting what we read the other day and look at the arguments of the other side as well. How many economists suggest to let the banks fail? How many economists actually believe letting Lehman fail was a mistake retrospectively? If a bank fails, what happens to the customers? How many aircrafts can an airline buy without credit? Is credit always bad? If you ignore the complexity of the financial world you are right where the tea party wants you to be, full of blind anger.
I am not suggesting to concentrate on Part A instead,far from that, I am advocating for a more diverse, open view. That is what I meant with many pilots tend to see something as ON or OFF. The world is much more complicated than that.
Last edited by 711; 27th Sep 2011 at 10:20.