I don’t

And might you explain why you have a problem with people being paid to think?

I do expect them to live up to the bargain though, do the thinking they’re accepting the cash for.

9 thoughts on “I don’t”

  1. If somebody can demonstrate that they have the wherewithal to think -preferably interesting and original thoughts – they may find someone prepared to pay them.

    This obviously leaves Capt. Potato in a bit of a spot.


  2. People are free to be paid to even not think, as long as they are obliged to pay tax on the payment, like ordinary people do when they work.

  3. Lot’s of people are paid to think. Someone’s even crazy enough to pay me to think. Because the thinking sometimes results in a marketable product.

    But for the prof, that would be grubby, wouldn’t it. Like being a mere tradesman.

  4. @ BiG
    I don’t get paid for anything else apart from thinking (I sometimes volunteer as unskilled/semi-skilled labour) and we live in comfort in our own house in a town rather more expensive than Ely.

  5. The potato’s thinking and payment. Prior to being paid by the EU -” EU is a dictatorship – look at Greece and Italy”. After being paid – “I love the EU , it’s wonderful!” As has been said before he’s busy sniffing round the arse of the climate change agitators in the hope of being shoved a few quid. If he really was that concerned about climate change he’d lead by example by cutting his own co2, but as that would involve sacrifice on his part he won’t. As been said before it all boils down to “Too many of you, Just enough of me”

  6. Dennis, He Who Says You Can Stuff Your Carbon

    Well, when your thinking comes up with drivel like this, people will have problems…

    The accounting concepts within sustainable cost accounting are also not either radical or even unusual. Many are already inherent in what is called International Accounting Standard 36 (IAS 36), which concerns impairment of the value of assets. IAS 36 says that impairment of the value of an asset may be required when:

    significant changes with an adverse effect on the entity have taken place during the period, or will take place in the near future, in the technological, market, economic or legal environment in which the entity operates or in the market to which an asset is dedicated. 

    It is our argument that the climate crisis creates this ‘significant change’ (to which we added the emphasis) for every company and requires all entities to consider this approach as a consequence.

    No competent accountant with even a passing acquaintance with IAS 36 can actually endorse the idea that ‘climate change’ constitutes an impairment of the value of an asset under IAS 36. Period.

  7. Being paid to think is fine (if, as others have said, you are actually capable of rational thought).

    The problem comes when you are paid to think what your paymaster wants you to think. And that’s where we get suspicious of Murphy’s rapid changes in direction – the reversal of his opinion of the EU, his sudden embracing of Greenery, etc.

  8. Descartes was one of the few who think, therefore they are,
    Because those who do not think, but are anyhow, outnumber them by far.

    Ogden Nash (Lines Fraught with Naught but Thought)

  9. If govt passes meaningful detailed legislation (say ban all ICE by 2030) then people will under IAS 36 account for any impairment that may reasonably arise, it’s hard to justify accounting for anything based on the current statements and targets as you can’t point to any specific impact

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *