The “ceteris paribus” is the key part here, and I think in real life fast processes for deciding on huge sums of money tend to do much worse than slower ones.
If someone says that A is worse than B because it has a certain property C, you shouldn’t ask “Why is C bad?” if you are not disputing the badness of C. It would be much clearer to say, “I agree C is bad, but A has other properties that make it better than B on balance.”
Is it really that hard to think of reasons why a faster process may be better, ceteris paribus, than a slower process?
The “ceteris paribus” is the key part here, and I think in real life fast processes for deciding on huge sums of money tend to do much worse than slower ones.
If someone says that A is worse than B because it has a certain property C, you shouldn’t ask “Why is C bad?” if you are not disputing the badness of C. It would be much clearer to say, “I agree C is bad, but A has other properties that make it better than B on balance.”