|
|
|
|
|
|
by smallnamespace
3291 days ago
|
|
|
I mean, the two parties have a diametrically opposed view of how the world works and what their own moral obligations are. One party thinks they're trying to make good games, and getting paid in the process. The other party views the rest of the world as a potential money machine, and they're just optimizing around which lever to pull to maximize their return. Matt Levine had a fun article[1] about this happening in a different context. 'FERC built a terrible box, and the box had some buttons that were labeled “push here for money,” and JPMorgan pushed them and got money.' One approach isn't necessarily 'wrong' and the other 'right', but bad things obviously happen if you thought you were working with a business partner, but instead you got a shark. [1] http://dealbreaker.com/2013/07/electricity-market-rules-were... |
|
|
> One approach isn't necessarily 'wrong' and the other 'right', ...
No. The truth is that one approach is, in fact, unambiguously morally inferior to the other. That morality may not match the financial implications of a contract, which should be able to assume "good faith" and "fair dealings" in their contracts.
I can understand that some people care more about the money than the morals, and will exploit contracts and the law in unexpected ways to try to make more money or gain more power. But I refuse to accept that this behavior is morally ambiguous. And furthermore, I refuse to act immorally.
Perhaps that means I will miss out on some money or power. Perhaps I will be competed out of business because of this conviction. And yeah, I'll reluctantly play the stupid game where I must by offering discounts for on-time payment instead of attempting to write in appropriate penalties and interest for late payments that I can't enforce against an army of corporate lawyers.
But I can say with conviction that acting in bad faith is morally wrong.