Peggy, Sounds like interesting and important results. Do you have citations?
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:27 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Thus spake peggy miller circa 10/17/2008 09:32 AM: > > Translation -- statistics and common sense verified that the larger the > > operation becomes, with noticeably poorer decisions happening at the size > of > > business over $1 billion in profits, matched by replacement of > > ownership/manager with non-owner managers, judgment fails. Caring appears > to > > be a part of ownership. Somethings counter this problem, like profit > sharing > > -- giving workers part of profits -- but ownership of business and > smaller > > size seems to be almost irreplaceable. Small banks and credit unions, > owned > > locally, rarely fail. The owner's name, reputation and thus decisions are > on > > the line. > > Why is it that we are (and continue to be) so myopic to the flaws to > such large-scale abstraction (aggregation and accumulation)? > > It seems (to me) that we should have learned this lesson thoroughly when > we demonstrated that many contexts call for distributed as opposed to > centralized solutions. We had to learn that lesson over and over in > various disciplines. Why hasn't that knowledge translated to corporate > governance? (Or government even?) > > Centralization, abstraction, aggregation, and accumulation seem to be > the dominant tendency. > > My undefended conjecture is that such abstraction is the only way an > individual can _both_ multiply their money _and_ keep the consequences > at arm's length. I.e. it's the only way one can both make butt-loads of > money and retain a clear conscience. (Gee, do I sound like a socialist? > or what? ;-) > > But it's also quite possible that the only way to maintain a "survival > by growth" method is to engage in such accumulation. For corporations, > it's obvious. For the federal government, it's less so because it's > reasonable to assume that the management of 3.5 million square miles and > 350 million people requires a centralized solution. > > > How many names of the managers of these large failed institutions do we > > know? a couple? and they get paid handsomely either way .. > > This reminds me of: > > Thus spake peter circa 10/01/2008 09:50 AM: > > Sure I will dig out some names ... > > [...] > > > > glen e. p. ropella wrote: > >> But can you help me reduce my ignorance? Which "complexity science > >> geniuses" created these credit models? And which ones do you think > >> might go to jail? > > Peter? Did you ever get a chance to dig up some names of these > "complexity science geniuses"? > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
