Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tony F.'s avatar

I think what a lot of this comes down to is cost. We've spent a generation 'optimizing' every system to squeeze out cost and emergency planning is inherently a cost with a once in a blue moon payback. We've similarly optimized supply chains and healthcare so we can continue to enjoy lower prices and lower taxes.

I agree that we should put some of that cost back in the system, but history seems to prove that Canadians are cheap and don't like paying for things that don't provide immediate gratification. Moreover, most (but not all -- see the healthcare system) of the failures have been inconvenient to most people which doesn't provide much motivation to change behavior.

The problem is us and our sense of entitlement to new stuff for cheap!

Expand full comment
Roy Brander's avatar

"Can someone please tell me why I apparently have put more thought into keeping my daily two-hour current events chat operating and online than Interac...?"

Because you have no Accounting department. Large companies have specialists that cut expenses, professionally. Their pressure is relentless. Where professional engineers are able to intercede, state that there are standards, unacceptable risks, Accounting can be fought off. In a large decision, involving many millions, the engineer MUST to have government laws/regulations to point to, or you will be overruled. Often they'll spend years overruling you, chopping away at the defenses bit by bit, but they get there.

"A failure of imagination, not of calculation", oddly, was my much-repeated line at the military conference I gave my "Titanic" talk at. They just didn't imagine the need for so many watertight compartments, for a double-hull - as had been on the earliest liners. Every generation of ships had fewer redundancies, less resiliency, more economic efficiency. From the "Great Eastern", with 50 watertight subdivisions, until you got the Titanic, with six. (Took sixty years. Accountants never sleep.) Then, the Titanic stimulated new REGULATIONS for watertight compartments, ships had to be forced to those designs, or economic pressures would relentlessly have made them more efficient, and less safe, again, in a few generations.

It's always that way: name a car safety feature that became universal because of free-market competition where customers always chose safety over savings. Never happened. They all had to be mandated. Computer network safety features are the same way: an efficient company will always beat a resilient company, except on that five-thousandth day; by then, the resilient companies are broke.

Matt's $150/month doesn't render him unable to out-compete other 'casters; but in a neck-and-neck competition for investors, a company with 7% profits, pays investors 14% more for their investment than one that makes 6%. If they can do that legally, then anything they can legally cut, will be, no matter how "prudent" your risk-managers say the extra network is.

http://www.cuug.ab.ca/branderr/titanic/

Expand full comment
74 more comments...

No posts