[ExI] Restructuring executive compensation
pharos at gmail.com
Sun May 31 07:59:09 UTC 2009
On 5/31/09, Max More wrote:
> Is it really so proven? I must have missed that proof. However, I suspect
> you are using "rules" to refer solely to centralized government
> intervention. I am not limiting the term that way, as should be obvious from
> the blog post of mine I previously mentioned.
> Even if what you say were true, taken literally it would prove very little.
> We will only be at "this point in history" for a moment. Then we move on to
> the next moment. As we move from one moment to the next, we learn. At least,
> we have the opportunity to learn, though obviously we often fail to do so.
> We're still only beginning to understand complex systems. Why be so
> pessimistic that we will never be able to tweak them on any level for the
> Let me get this straight. Are you say that no changes to rules (private or
> public) will make any difference at all? Are you really agreeing with BillK
> that "Better rules are meaningless." (BTW, that comment baffles me given
> what seems to be his favorable view of government intervention.) I didn't
> say that the economic cycle could be entirely prevented, only that it might
> be somewhat alleviated and some of its causes and effects moderated.
The heart of the problem is 'too big to fail'.
This means that the rule of law no longer applies if an organization
gets big enough and powerful enough. The staff and directors cannot be
charged with fraud. They cannot be sacked. The organization must be
given billions of government money to ensure bankrupt organizations
continue trading. Accounts can be falsified with no comeback.
'Problem' liabilities are allowed to be 'off-balance-sheet' or just
given fictitious valuations. Huge salaries and bonuses continue as
Really, just do whatever you like.
Until this failure is corrected, 'rules' and even laws just get pushed aside.
More information about the extropy-chat