An economic analogy
A community has a bridge that has become old and dangerous. They're only using one lane to cross both ways. They hire contractor O to rebuild the bridge. He brings in the best engineers and union labor to build a strong 4 lane freeway bridge, including shoulders for emergency access and engineered strong enough to withstand a major earthquake, knowing that someday an earthquake will hit.
Now that contractor O has completed the job, people in the community increase use of the bridge. The community then hires contractor T to maintain the bridge. Contractor T touts how great the bridge he provides to the community is, while he starts to dismantle "unnecessary" parts of the bridge. He says the bridge was way over engineered and some of these redundant trusses are not necessary, so make the bridge more efficient by selling off the excess material. As far as everyone using the bridge knows, the bridge is as strong and reliable as it has ever been, so even more people use it. Contractor T decides to increase the capacity of the bridge by turning those unused shoulders into express lanes for those able to pay an extra fee. The bridge is now perfect, the best it has ever been, and more efficient since those extra trusses and such have been removed.
Then an earthquake hits and the bridge begins cracking and collapsing. Of course emergency access is limited since the shoulders have been taken up and Contractor T will blame Contractor O for the poor design.