Feedback to Jorinde Vernooij
In Taiwan, the country where I come from, many companies that strive to maximize their profits are not even able to keep up with their environmental standards with legal requirement. The problem then shifted to farmers downstream of the factory’s discharge pipe. Then finally the problems will be shifted to the consumers who buy the rice. Therefore I think Friedman’s proposition has too much confidence in corporations being able to do everything right according to the social expectation. And if keeping up with the legal standards is so difficult, why should greedy be seen as a driver for a system?
Part 1: (Original post: WHAT IS DECIDING OUR DECISIONS?)
First of all I would like to compliment on how the author structured the article. As a blog reader, I find it easy to follow the blog and the reasoning. The author cited the research papers of the theories and use that as a backbone throughout the article to explain how the position of the article has been developed. This gives the readers a clear picture of how the theories fit into the existing concept of bounded rationality and rational decision making.
The author clearly defined the goals of the topic as the economic growth and regulation compliance in the beginning. From the four reasons provided in the third paragraph, it seems that nuclear energy is qualified as an option in order to reach the goals because of its low CO2 emission, its low risk of accidents, and its high economic feasibility. The three reasons that the CDV used to back up its preference for nuclear energy seem reasonable from the first glance. However, many follow-up questions could also be asked in this case such as the source of the uranium fuel rods and the acceptable risks of nuclear power plant and nuclear waste. Can the Netherlands supply itself with uranium ore? Are the risks of final disposal and handling of nuclear waste considered lower than the risks of other energy options? I wonder how CDV could address these issues and justify its decision making as a rational decision making in this case.
In the end of this article the author pointed out the lack of knowledge of the local market and CDV’s limited research on other types of radioactive energy. The limited information that the CDV possesses to present the energy options are well addressed here and therefore it is convincing for a reader to agree with the characterisation of CDV as an organisation with bounded rationality.
The author clearly defined the goals of the topic as the economic growth and regulation compliance in the beginning. From the four reasons provided in the third paragraph, it seems that nuclear energy is qualified as an option in order to reach the goals because of its low CO2 emission, its low risk of accidents, and its high economic feasibility. The three reasons that the CDV used to back up its preference for nuclear energy seem reasonable from the first glance. However, many follow-up questions could also be asked in this case such as the source of the uranium fuel rods and the acceptable risks of nuclear power plant and nuclear waste. Can the Netherlands supply itself with uranium ore? Are the risks of final disposal and handling of nuclear waste considered lower than the risks of other energy options? I wonder how CDV could address these issues and justify its decision making as a rational decision making in this case.
In the end of this article the author pointed out the lack of knowledge of the local market and CDV’s limited research on other types of radioactive energy. The limited information that the CDV possesses to present the energy options are well addressed here and therefore it is convincing for a reader to agree with the characterisation of CDV as an organisation with bounded rationality.
Part 2: (Original post: THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OPINION)
I really like how the title is given a new life in each post in this blog. It inspires me to think the same question. The author argues the definition of success and interests are different in Friedman’s article and the documentary. The author further argues that the costs of business operation have been shifted to the employees of lower-income countries to absorb. And this is the consequence of corporations trying to save money rather than investing in upgrading the social and environmental conditions. Through these actions, businesses are able to generate more profits while fulfilling all legal requirements.In Taiwan, the country where I come from, many companies that strive to maximize their profits are not even able to keep up with their environmental standards with legal requirement. The problem then shifted to farmers downstream of the factory’s discharge pipe. Then finally the problems will be shifted to the consumers who buy the rice. Therefore I think Friedman’s proposition has too much confidence in corporations being able to do everything right according to the social expectation. And if keeping up with the legal standards is so difficult, why should greedy be seen as a driver for a system?
No comments:
Post a Comment