John Williams wrote: > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/metaphors_for_f.html
... > Metaphors for Financial Reform > by Arnold Kling ... > 2. Architecture > > This metaphor is the belief is that wise technocrats need to make sure > that the wild, rambunctious private sector has a safe place to play. > By designing the right sorts of circuit breakers and thermostats, the > technocrats can ensure that nothing catches fire or causes injury. > > The architects are keen on transparency, international co-operation, > and unified command. Achieving an optimal social outcome is a matter > of getting the top-down design right. > > My problem with this metaphor is that I do not believe that the > technocrats are any wiser than the markets that they are trying to > regulate. In particular, they tend to see only the intended > consequences of regulations, not unintended consequences. Moreover, > the architecture metaphor misses the reality that in a dynamic world, > trial-and-error makes more progress than static design. I am not sure how many on the list are interested in software development methodology, but isn't he missing the chance here to invoke "extreme architecture"? I believe a "safety-net of circuit breakers" _can_ be designed in an iterative way, learning from mistakes, adapting to new problems, while still maintaining a well-designed whole. I have to admit that I haven't seen anybody trying. His "3. Housecleaning" meme seems to be heading in this direction, but he doesn't seem to acknowledge that it is actually an iterative, feedback-oriented version of "2. Architecture": > My point is not that regulators should ban these practices. But we > should cull out policies, including capital regulations, that either > deliberately or inadvertently promoted them. /c _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
