Template:M intro philosophy doubt: Difference between revisions

{{drop|A|t the heart}} of commerce is ''[[trust]]'' and ''[[credit]]'': the expectation that one will ''[[be a good egg]]''. This is the ravishing beauty of [[laissez-faire]]: almost alone among polities, it gets the alignment of [[Conflict of interest|interests]] right. It need not hope that actors are saints, or even that they will act out of public-spiritedness; indeed, it presumes they will not. The operating assumption of a market system is, “everyone for themselves.” ''There are no [[ally|allies]]''.  

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''. Not ''goals of reward'', but ''systems of trust''. As they develop, relationships grow: the dinks and scuffs we sustain along the way toughen up: if we manage them well, our relationships grow stronger. Relationships are, in this way, [[anti-fragile]]. We gain from being vulnerable. We have to put ourselves at risk to earn a greater reward.

Relationships develop as ''markets'' develop, as ''technology'' develops, as ''competitors'' develop and as ''threats'' develop. Markets, technology, competitors and threats ''interact''. The landscape shape-shifts. This is [[complex]], [[non-linear]] and [[unpredictable]]. We do not yet know where we are going. A contract which tries to anticipate and codify the future only ''ossifies'' it: in presuming our present boundaries are fixed, it commits us to just one kind of certainty: ''[[obsolescence]]''. It entrenches perspectives; binds us to methods which will become outdated. It ''blinds'' us to new ones which will be resolutely better.  

Worse yet, it encourages those already in relationships to consider matters settled; impervious to improvement — even to ''discussion''. They might even ''avoid'' talking to each other, for fear of prejudicing their carefully constructed legal “protections”.<ref>Often unjustifiably. See: [[estoppel by waiver]].</ref> They may even feel, without [[Legal]]’s sanction, they ''cannot''. Things are at a pretty pass when market counterparties avoid talking to each other.

 

This is a poor outcome. If there is a problem, ''get on the phone''. ''Talk''. Work the relationship. ''Reinforce'' the capital you have so painstakingly built. In a [[positive-sum game|positive-sum relationship]], each party’s best outcome ''is the other’s wellbeing''. The longer our partner lingers, ''the more we can dance''.<ref>There is an echo of [[Chuck|Chuck Prince]]’s notorious statement here, I realise.</ref> The value of a relationship is a function of ''time''. This is ''logically true'' for any relationship whose present value is greater than zero. Prolonging it is the best outcome.  

Any relationship you can’t make positive, you should end now and be done with it. Why wait?

Here, doubt is the best motivating factor; the comforting lurch towards [[certainty]] the worst impulse. An unforeseen scenario presents you with a dilemma. How you react to it might affect your client. What to do? Do you ask your client, or just check the [[verbiage]] and, if the coast is clear, carry on?  

The best answer will rarely issue from a [[legal eagle]]’s beak: “well, why in God’s name are you asking ''me''? Shouldn’t you ask your ''client''?”