83,040
edits
Hindsight: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil| | {{a|devil|{{image|Concert flyer|png|Bring cushions.}}}}{{Quote| | ||
{{office scene|III|iv|gazes admiringly at his own Insta feed, which consists entirely of touched-up selfies|silently fumes while the [[JC]], who has managed to elbow his way into what was meant to be a private meeting of important people, will now not stop talking}} | {{office scene|III|iv|gazes admiringly at his own Insta feed, which consists entirely of touched-up selfies|silently fumes while the [[JC]], who has managed to elbow his way into what was meant to be a private meeting of important people, will now not stop talking}} | ||
:'''[[JC]]''': [''Winding down''] “... so, I ask you: why has the legal industry been so ''inept'' at preventing catastrophic risks? There are more lawyers than ever, but we don’t seem to be able to stop anything: Nick Leeson, [[LTCM]], [[Amaranth]], [[Enron]], Global Crossing, Kerviel, [[Madoff]], Bear Stearns, [[Lehman]], [[LIBOR]], Theranos, London Whale, Mossack Fonseca, 1MDB, Wirecard. All our immense legal firepower failed to prevent ''any'' of these.” | :'''[[JC]]''': [''Winding down''] “... so, I ask you: why has the legal industry been so ''inept'' at preventing catastrophic risks? There are more lawyers than ever, but we don’t seem to be able to stop anything: Nick Leeson, [[LTCM]], [[Amaranth]], [[Enron]], Global Crossing, Kerviel, [[Madoff]], Bear Stearns, [[Lehman]], [[LIBOR]], Theranos, London Whale, Mossack Fonseca, 1MDB, Wirecard. All our immense legal firepower failed to prevent ''any'' of these.” | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
This is the human condition, summarised. Only ''once it has happened'' — [[past tense]] — and often, only months or years after that, can we ''possibly'' appreciate the significance of the unexpected. | This is the human condition, summarised. Only ''once it has happened'' — [[past tense]] — and often, only months or years after that, can we ''possibly'' appreciate the significance of the unexpected. | ||
===The category error: providing for the future by reference to the past=== | ===The category error: providing for the future by reference to the past=== | ||
This is where my friend the middle manager makes his [[category error]]. [[Data]] all come from the same place: [[Past results are no guarantee of future performance|the past]]. When we review risks, catastrophes and step-changes; when we consider [[punctuated equilibrium|punctuations to the equilibrium]] be they fair or foul, our wisdom, our careful analysis, our sage opinions, our hot takes, our [[thought leader]]ship — ''all'' of these are [[Second-order derivative|derived]] from, predicated on, and delimited by [[data]] which, when the event played out, ''we did not have''. | This is where my friend the middle manager makes his [[category error]]. [[Data]] all come from the same place: [[Past results are no guarantee of future performance|the past]]. When we review risks, catastrophes and step-changes; when we consider [[punctuated equilibrium|punctuations to the equilibrium]] be they fair or foul, our wisdom, our careful analysis, our sage opinions, our [[Hot takes on Twitter|hot takes]], our [[thought leader]]ship — ''all'' of these are [[Second-order derivative|derived]] from, predicated on, and delimited by [[data]] which, when the event played out, ''we did not have''. | ||
And herein lies the tension and profound dilemma of the received approach to modern legal practice. For we commercial lawyers are charged with anticipating ''the [[future]]'' but we are sent out to battle armed with a methodology drawn exclusively from ''[[Past results are no guarantee of future performance|the past]]''. Just occasionally, this [[dissonance]] rears up and hits us, when the formal imperatives of [[legibility]] take priority over the logic of common sense. When, say, the financial controller insists {{sex|she}} must hold capital against undoubted shortcomings in a contract documenting a transaction that has already matured — a risk that ''did not come about and no longer can'', even though the reporting period rumbles on. That kind of thing. | And herein lies the tension and profound dilemma of the received approach to modern legal practice. For we commercial lawyers are charged with anticipating ''the [[future]]'' but we are sent out to battle armed with a methodology drawn exclusively from ''[[Past results are no guarantee of future performance|the past]]''. Just occasionally, this [[dissonance]] rears up and hits us, when the formal imperatives of [[legibility]] take priority over the logic of common sense. When, say, the financial controller insists {{sex|she}} must hold capital against undoubted shortcomings in a contract documenting a transaction that has already matured — a risk that ''did not come about and no longer can'', even though the reporting period rumbles on. That kind of thing. | ||