Yet in health, we see action as inherently dangerous; while in economics, we see inaction as inherently dangerous. Why?
That is a very good point, I must appreciate that you noticed it. I would say that one of the reasons that happens is because people resist change. In health, any action would mean there could be something wrong that can happen. Thus, it is made a mandate that every possible wrong be checked before such an action takes place. Hence, the inherent danger in action.
Where as in case of economics, actions are usually taken to stop a change from happening (Stimulus package, bailing out car companies, president goes shopping, etc.). Thus, inaction would be accepting change which people always oppose. Hence, the inherent danger in inaction.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
And maybe some pilots eject when they could try harder to save the plane instead. Has anyone checked which is correct?
Does a fighter plane have a black box, like the one that is there in passenger planes?