Aug

9

 I recently read this article about Snowden. It began:

The recent revelations by the whistleblower Edward Snowden were fascinating. But they - and all the reactions to them - had one enormous assumption at their heart.

That the spies know what they are doing.

There are professions where you have to daily prove your competence, sometimes multiple times. I was recently talking to an appliance repairman who was on his 9th call of the day and he found and fixed the problem every time. On the other side of the spectrum are professions where if you go through the motions for extended periods of time and your competence (other than not offending the people you shouldn't offend) is hardly tested at all, like say counter-intelligence people, mid-level government bureaucrats in many but by no means all departments, movie reviewers, judges, etc.

Almost everybody has to do SOMETHING right in the sense that they can all screw up enough to lose their jobs or businesses, but clearly there are extremes depending on how objectively one's success is measured, both in terms of it even being possible or in terms of how much information is available by those who evaluate them, and several other factors.

I wonder where the people who contribute to pricing securities on a daily basis fall within this continuum?


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search