Henning Kantner

Düsseldorf, Germany

Someone is shy

Henning hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Henning Kantner
Posted over 4 years ago
Dan Cobley: What physics taught me about marketing
Wrong. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture "In August 2000, as a result of a conclusion of the International Chamber of Commerce, Andersen Consulting broke all contractual ties with AWSC and Arthur Andersen. As part of the arbitration settlement, Andersen Consulting paid the sum held in escrow (then $1.2 billion) to Arthur Andersen, and was required to change its name, resulting in the entity being renamed Accenture." Enron was later than that.
Noface
Henning Kantner
Posted almost 8 years ago
Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change
True enough: no one can compute the cost of global warming. No one can compute the cost of Malaria. We cannot compute the monetary value. And no one can compute the cost of human suffering, because while human life has value, it does not have a price. And yet: we can make educated guesses about the cost of liberating the world from evils such as Malaria. And we can attribute relative costs to the solutions to the various problems and compare. Spending billions to save but a few people while at the same time not saving many people due to lack of funds does not seem like a good idea at all. If you do not agree with my kind of thinking because "human life and suffering cannot be compared" I move that the funds which exist are used to save ME. So you are comparing? You think my suffering does not measure up to the sufferings of other people and the money should be spent on people more deserving? You are right. It should. And therefore I believe it is our duty to make sure that we spend money dedicated to reducing human suffering in the most efficient way possible. And that means - unpleasant as the task may be - to find priorities. And Lomborg is in my opinion right in one more aspect: the gravity of a problem does not necessarily correlate with urgency to do something about it. Spending money on large problems with huge cost may not be efficient after all! And while we cannot calculate the cost of the problems (just make educated, though wildly differing guesses), we can make quite sensible assumptions about the cost of solutions.And if the solution is too expensive - it is time to find a cheaper solution. If there is one. If we cannot, we should work on a different problem first. Until the problems which score higher on the cost/benefit scale have been eliminated and this problem has become our No. 1 priority. Is it possible we do not care about Malaria because it's somewhere else?
Noface
Henning Kantner
Posted almost 8 years ago
Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change
I could not disagree more with what you, Paddy, write. What else do we have than scientific analysis of situations, problems, possible solutions, their respective cost and then work out priorities? All other approaches are in my opinion purely arbitrary. The science of dealing with scarcity (and brain power, willingness, money to save problems is a scarce resource) is called economics. Who else should be doing that analysis, Paddy? And - on what grounds will you give that group that authority? Well-meaning is not enough for me. Economics deals with realities. Wishful thinking will not help. It is easy not to like this approach. Where is the alternative?BTW: I am not an economist. :-)