Posted by
m0t0r1zed on Friday, October 24, 2008 6:49:14 PM
The Trouble with Greenspan
I'm a bit disturbed. Not a surprise. That's my usual mental state.
However, I am particularly disturbed by Greenspan's comments that his fundamental thinking and model of how the business world works were incorrect.
Bummer, man. Sucks to be you.
I don't know if he is being dumb or deceitful. Although semi-autonomous actors are acting within their own self-interest, it is only at a local level.
Hmm, analogy to make things simple.
Cancer. Cancer arises from our own cells. It would be in the best interests of the cancer to stop growing before it kills its host - since then the cancer also dies - but it doesn't. It grows and grows and grows until eventually, everything dies - including itself.
Not rational? No. Perfectly rational. You are looking at the wrong organizational level. A cancer cell is seeking optimal stability at the cellular level. Humans are looking at cancer from a multi-cellular, organismal level. Similarly, we are willing to sicken ourselves with chemotherapy and kill off our own cells so that we survive at the organismal level. From a purely cellular point of view, I suppose such actions would seem insane.
Interpretations of rational and irrational behavior depend upon the proper level - although everything is fundamentally rational because there is a proper cause and effect for everything. Another dumb, poorly thought out analogy - a mentally deranged person is irrational at the societal and perhaps at the organismal level, but the biochemistry and genetics of such an individual is perfectly logical and orderly.
But I digress. Back to Greenspan's comment. The same universal forces that select for the existence of cancer, also select for similar beasties within our political and economic and military-industrial-infotainment systems.
Anyhoo, I suspect that Greenspan's fundamental flaw was adhering to memes that are widely believed simply because they sound correct. For example, it is not survival of the fittest that is correct. It is survival of the relatively stable. Persistence is valued more than superiority. To remain is more important than to rule.
Heh, actually, that is why I have so little faith in the existing political system. Our system selects for people who are maximally adapted for just getting votes and retaining power. Is it a surprise that Obama's greatest achievement so far is "running a good campaign?" Is it a surprise that the monetary investment into campaigning keeps rising? The first thing people start working on after getting elected is how to get re-elected. It is the perpetual campaign because our system selects for it.
Our Congress is filled with people who are better at simply remaining in power, rather than in actually governing. The Democratic and Republican parties are simply optimized, vote-getting machines that use people, organizations, and ideological memes to maximize the number of its members in power.
And I can't really blame them. Although I may blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine, and QQ about how lousy they are, they are behaving perfectly rationally. This is how the system is currently set up to work, and they are simply conforming to the hills and valleys of the political landscape.
But I digress again, and now I'm lost, and I don't know how to return to whatever point I started out making.
Oh wait, I never had one from the beginning. This is just a blog.