Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (35113)	4/26/2009 10:51:16 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

No RMF, that true in almost every context, and reasonably so. Pointing out problems with an idea or proposed solution is a very useful contribution itself. Having a good alternative would be a bonus, but generally shouldn't be considered absolutely necessary. About the only context where it may be necessary is in the context of an actual leader in a severe and very time critical situation. His advisers can reasonably point out flaws in his plans, and should do so even if they don't have an alternative. But in certain situations (in particular military situations, in battle a bad plan forcefully executed is usually better than paralysis) something needs to be done. But in any situation reckless action without consideration for the downsides is potentially dangerous, so intelligent pointing out the weakness of plans or ideas is important and useful. And most situations, even those that are called, or even those that really are, crises, are usually not nearly as time critical as many make them out to be, esp. when it involves politics.