[单项选择]A school of behavioral economists has long argued that when it comes to money, people are incapable of acting in their own best interest -- that decisions result from impulse and overconfidence as much as from reason. Smart folks, in other words, are just as likely to soon part with their money as all those fools.The truly bad news is that smart companies are just as prone to make terrible decisions for the same reason. Take one of the biggest business decisions of all— merger. Research consistently shows that most mergers fail in every sense of the word, from falling stock prices to lower profitability after the merger. Yet, even with suffering capital markets, a recent Hewitt Associates study found that more than half of the 70 senior executives and board members surveyed planned to step up merger activity during the next three years. Why Call it executive hubris. CEOs are not different from the rest of us in that they fall prey to the self-enhancement bias: we all like to think we are intelligent and efficacious. So we overestimate our abilities. That’s why studies show that significantly more than half of all people believe they are above average -- in negotiating ability, even in income, This overly optimistic view is, of course, worse for CEOs- afar all, they generally are way above average. Btu the result is the same: bad decisions. One study, by business school professors Matthew Hayward and Donald Hambrick, showed that the greater the hubris of the chief executive, the more a company tends to overpay for acquisitions.The aphorism "Pride goeth before a fall" seems to hold true in business too. When executives are confronted with the appalling statistics, their first response goes something like this: "That may happen to other companies, but not ours. This acquisition will be more successful. We have learned."The next CEO challenge is persuading a possibly recalcitrant board of directors to let you pursue your urge to merge. Hubris, again, returns to center stage. You paint a picture of doom and gloom that will result if you don’t merge. Take a look at one of the rationales given for the merger of Hewlett-Packard and Compaq, two companies with poor operating track records. The argument was that PCs were becoming a commodity industry, consolidation was inevitable, and if HP didn’t do the consolidating, it would soon be one of the consolidated. Here’s another variant of the same rationale: If you don’t buy the target company, your competitor will -- and you’ll lose out. This gambit uses the influence strategy of scarcity -- we want what we can’t have, and we find particularly desirable anything that we may lose to someone else.Here’s how to avoid hubris-fueled merger mania. First, follow the adage from medicine: Forgive and remember. Go back and evaluate past merger decisions, admit when you were wrong, figure out why, and learn from it.Second, beware of too much agreement in the board room. When Alfred Sloan ran General Motors, if he couldn’t find opposition to a decision, he’d postpone it. He interpreted a lack of dissent as a lack of analysis. Find, even encourage, people to disagree with you, so that all sides of the decision are examined. Mostly, we like those who agree with us. But as one of my colleagues likes to point out, if two people agree all the time, one of them is redundant.The urge to merge is still like an addiction in many companies: Doing deals is much more fun and interesting than fixing fundamental problems. So, as in dealing with any other addiction or temptation, maybe it is best to just say no.What is the argument in the first paragraph about earning money
A. People are likely to make decisions reasonably.
B. Behavioral economists are likely to act with overconfidence.
C. Clever people are capable to earn a great fortune.
D. Intelligent people tend to behave the same with the foolish on