Doubt: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
326 bytes added ,  1 December 2020
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:


===The [[commercial imperative]] of doubt===
===The [[commercial imperative]] of doubt===
At the heart of the commerce, ''trust'' and ''credit'' the expectation that one will ''[[be a good egg]]''. The beauty of a [[laissez-faire]] system of freedoms: alone among polities it gets the alignment of interests right. It need not hope that actors will out of public spiritedness, and assumes they will not. Laissez-faire assumes we are all in it for ourselves. Yet, through the magic of the [[iterated prisoner’s dilemma]], we are nonetheless incentivised to do the right thing: the long-term payoff of repeated co-operation grossly outweighs the short-term bump of a single defection. We build not transactions, but relationships. As they develop, relationships grow: the dinks and scuffs we pick up along the way toughen us. If we manage them well, our relationships grow stronger. Relationships are [[anti-fragile]].  
At the heart of the commerce is ''trust'' and ''credit'': the expectation that one will ''[[be a good egg]]''. This is the beauty of a [[laissez-faire]] system: alone among polities it gets the alignment of interests right. It need not hope that actors are saints, or even that they will out of public spiritedness; indeed, it presumes they will not. The operating assumption of a market system is, “every man for himself.” Every woman for hers, too, for that matter.  


Relationships develop as ''markets'' develop, as ''technology'' develops, as ''competitors'' develop and as ''threats'' develop. Markets, technology, competitors and threats interact with each other. The landscape shifts. This is [[complex]], [[non-linear]] and [[unpredictable]]. We do not know where we are going. We cannot be [[certainty|certain]] about our future. A contract which tries, with infinite detail, to anticipate this future — to codify it — will necessarily bind us to impracticable ways of working. It fossilises our commercial expectations on the day we form them.  
Yet, through the magic of the [[iterated prisoner’s dilemma]], we are nonetheless incentivised to do the right thing: the long-term payoff of repeated co-operation grossly outweighs the short-term bump of a single defection. We build not transactions, but relationships. As they develop, relationships grow: the dinks and scuffs we pick up along the way toughen us. If we manage them well, our relationships grow stronger. Relationships are [[anti-fragile]].  


Worse yet, it encourages those in the relationship not to talk to each other, for fear of prejudicing their pre-constructed legal protections. They may even feel, without Legal’s sanction, they cannot. This is exactly opposite to the optimal outcome. If there is a problem, ''get on the phone''. ''Talk''. Flex that relationship. ''Reinforce'' the trust and credit you have accumulated. In a positive-sum relationship, each party’s ultimate outcome is the other’s wellbeing. The longer they live the longer the relationship can last. The value of the relationship to each side is a function of ''time''.<ref>This is ''logically true'': if a relationship has a positive value — any value greater than nil — then prolonging it is the best outcome. If the relationship has a ''negative'' value for either side, that side should end it now, regardless of its prognosis. Why wait?</ref>
Relationships develop as ''markets'' develop, as ''technology'' develops, as ''competitors'' develop and as ''threats'' develop. Markets, technology, competitors and threats interact with each other. The landscape shifts. This is [[complex]], [[non-linear]] and [[unpredictable]]. We do not know where we are going. We cannot be [[certainty|certain]] about our future. A contract which tries, with infinite detail, to anticipate the future — to codify it — will necessarily bind us to ways of working which will rapidly turn out to be impractical. An ode to certainty fossilises our commercial expectations on the day we form them.
 
Worse yet, it encourages those in the relationship to consider matters settled, and not in need of discussion. They might even ''avoid'' talking to each other, for fear of prejudicing these pre-constructed legal protections.<ref>Often unjustifiably. See: [[estoppel by waiver]].</ref> They may even feel, without [[Legal]]’s sanction, they cannot.  
 
This is exactly opposite to the optimal outcome. If there is a problem, ''get on the phone''. ''Talk''. Flex that relationship. ''Reinforce'' the relationship capital you have so painstakingly built. In a positive-sum relationship, each party’s best outcome is the other’s wellbeing. The longer they live, and the longer the relationship can last, the better. The value of the relationship to each side is a function of ''time''.<ref>This is ''logically true'': if a relationship has a positive value — any value greater than nil — then prolonging it is the best outcome. If the relationship has a ''negative'' value for either side, that side should end it now, regardless of its prognosis. Why wait?</ref>


Here doubt is the best motivating factor. “Hey, legal, what does this clause in our legal agreement, that we signed 10 years ago, mean? Can we do this?”
Here doubt is the best motivating factor. “Hey, legal, what does this clause in our legal agreement, that we signed 10 years ago, mean? Can we do this?”

Navigation menu