Comments for Senior Partner Blog

Comment on One Small Step For Man, One Giant Leap For Mankind by Ulf Karaker

Ulf Karaker — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:03:44 +0000

Thanks for given the blogg information this morning. Will keep a track of your writing. Enjoy the weekend

Comment on Earning Your Right to Bend the Rules by Edward Petersen

Edward Petersen — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:23:18 +0000

Earning your right to bend the rules is a daily struggle we face when making decisions that ultimately revolve around ethics and morality. Decisions that are for the greater good of society or for the pursuit of self interest. Is it right to cheer for a player in your football team to fein a foul in the penalty box in order to win a penalty decision against the opposing team when your team is losing and consequently score a from the resulant penalty? This represents both the greater good principal for “your team” and the pursuit of self interest by scoring the goal. Yet the morality of cheating in sport is considered immoral and lacking in sportmanship.

Increasingly in today’s competitive world decisions are being made based on financial gain and thus the pursuit of personal interest. In English speaking countries it is not uncommon for specific interest groups to fund political campaigns to advance certain causes. Thus these political systems highlight the very conflict of interest of the greater good principal that they are supposed to represent. The world readily affirms the right of human life but at the same its citizens pay taxes that enable industrialists to develop technology and weapons that enhance the way in which to kill rather than invest those resources in the social being of society. The UN was established with the hope to prevent war but the decision to go to war is itself a political decision in which there is an inherent conflict of interest. History is written by the victors.

We readily accept as individuals that it is wrong to lie, to steal, to kill etc as basic rules but constantly undermine these values. Should a politican vote with their conscience or along party lines, should a lawyer argue a certain legal point that they do not agree with, should a banker approve a loan because it adds to their year end bonus?

If it were simply a case of depositing enough good deeds to be able to swear then I would be shit out of luck to be able to swear let alone anything else. I dare say along with many other people. In the meantime I will take the best decisions I can knowing that I will make mistakes along the way and hopefully do not greatly offend too many people in doing so.

Comment on The Challenges of Being A Lawyer by Donita Klahn

Donita Klahn — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:42:30 +0000

What a fantastic article. I really love reading these kinds or articles. I look forward to see what others have to say.

Comment on When The Shit Hits The Fan by physical therapist

physical therapist — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:43:04 +0000

Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!

Comment on Moscow Is Burning by Elena Parfenova

Elena Parfenova — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:28:58 +0000

Dear Sir, I enjoy your stories. The only minor comment, Putin is not the President of Russia…Or was it on purpose?
Regards,
Elena

Comment on Fundamentalism by Kicki

Kicki — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:21:28 +0000

You need to advertise your thoughts. They are interesting to read.

Kristina

Comment on The Cold War, Not So Cold by Patrik Merup

Patrik Merup — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:06:07 +0000

Dear blogger, very interesting to read your thoughts and very refreshing to see that the blog is wider than “pure law and economics”. However, I think you agree that you actually write about economics and law but from a practical perspective. I really like that!
I believe our “human dilemma” is that the parties in power likes the power and want to stay in power. Significant development and also significant improvement is often a revolutionary process which jeopardize the parties in power’s position. Therefor we have a built-in contradiction between politics and improvement. I am convinced most politicians have good faith but however, the contradiction is always there…

If we look at it from a global perspective I believe things are worse today than say 100 years ago since the parties in power are more powerful today and therefor the “improvement-potential” is harder to achieve.

However, I have hope since I believe that any eco-system will adapt to equilibrium and so will ours. It can though, be a rather painful process, especially for the parties in power.

Br
/Patrik

Comment on A Public Affair by Magnus

Magnus — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:28:30 +0000

I have not read this earlier, Per, but democracy is not defined by power by numbers. It is not nearly that simple. The classical example is of course the election of Hitler in the thirties. I am not sure that the North Korean leadership would be thrown over even if there would be actual free and secret (democratic) elections, because of the control of the intire flow of information. Thankfully, we have an exellent access to information in Sweden but the royal court has an overwhelmingly unproportionate access to getting their message out – give republicans free access to the the biggest tv channel between 8 and 9 once a week, without being faced with a single tough question.

The Swedish people loves the royal family, not monarchy as such, and that is what to polls show. Ask people if they think election of the head of state based on competence or appointment by being born into a certain (dyslectic) family is more democratic and I think the answer would be very different.

Comment on The Chinese Wonder, No Wonder by Kristina

Kristina — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:58:49 +0000

You mean that we are more than 100 years behind?

Comment on The Chinese Wonder, No Wonder by Lotta

Lotta — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:08:28 +0000

Thanks for all interesting and thoughtful insights!