82,891
edits
Grand unifying theory: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
===Random thoughts=== | ===Random thoughts=== | ||
The [[high-modernist]] disposition has reorganised, not banished [[redundancy]] cost and slack but rerouted it from productive units into the administration layer. The generals/troops mix has inverted, with the atomisation of functions, each with its own colossal bureaucratic machine. It has converted ''functional'' redundancy — which in a [[complex]] environment, is a competitive advantage and only a drawback in a [[simple]] environment, as it maximises reactivity, creativity, agility and adaptability, but minimises central controllability — into ''administrative'' redundancy, which is a competitive advantage in a simple environment, as it prioritises control and mechanisation over a basically unnecessary (and dangerous) creativity and diversity. In a simple system control, discipline and execution is all there is: your perfect ratio is all administration and only machines executing | The [[high-modernist]] disposition has reorganised, not banished [[redundancy]] cost and slack but rerouted it from productive units into the administration layer. The generals/troops mix has inverted, with the atomisation of functions, each with its own colossal bureaucratic machine. It has converted ''functional'' redundancy — which in a [[complex]] environment, is a competitive advantage and only a drawback in a [[simple]] environment, as it maximises reactivity, creativity, agility and adaptability, but minimises central controllability — into ''administrative'' redundancy, which is a competitive advantage in a simple environment, as it prioritises control and mechanisation over a basically unnecessary (and dangerous) creativity and diversity. In a simple system control, discipline and execution is all there is: your perfect ratio is all administration and only machines executing | ||
===Pragmatism as underlying everything=== | |||
What's the failure of principles based regulation the principles or the failure to regulate at all? Strikes me that creating detailed formal rules gives market participants a free option: it is the equivalent of substituting a moral obligation for a financial one: as long as you have complied with the letter of the law, any question of whether you have complied with its spirit, principle or or overarching ethical standard is moot. It's another form of modernism. | |||
consider also how easy it is to get a legal opinion or certificate of compliance or ruling. If the question is is quotes did you do the right thing" is any law firm going to write that opinion question mark and more than the point, should they? | |||