Working together… taking risks together.

Landing (Photo credit: Rhubarble)

44 years and one week ago, we worked together and landed on the moon. We invested massively as a society and we all took the risk that the mission may fail. Yet, we came out of it benefiting not only from the pride of such an amazing achievement, but also by the myriad technologies developed by the process to achieve said achievement. No money was made, no one became dirty rich over it, if it failed it would have ruined no one’s lives except the individual astronauts who were willing to take the risk for all of us and yet, we all gained in the long term.

We gave up short term gain by investing money, sweat, blood and tears on such a grand venture for all mankind.

We would have all gained from the investment in engineering and research regardless of the success of the mission, and a few heroes who went on that flying firework were the ones that took all the risk.

Business firms like Xerox invented  the PC as we know it (ethernet, GUI, etc.) They worked to create long-term value for their business, not simply to get short-term gain at all costs.

Wouldn’t that be nice if we could get over our religion of individualism and do the same today?

The ultra-individualism developing over the past decades has lead to short-term thinking, massive risk-taking and wholesale destruction of the social contract that kept all of us united and building a better world together. We excuse it because of the myth that anyone, without regards to luck, familial connections or access to capital can somehow become an individualistic God (read: billionaire) by simply working hard on that idea that changes everything.

Yes, some people have done that and helped the world – Steve JobsBill Gates, etc. However many, many more have not and what’s worse is many have discovered the best way to become a God in an individualistic secularist world is to cheat the system, find the loopholes where you can make money without adding value, where you can perform rent-seeking.

Firms like FedEx and UPS cut costs by providing terrible customer service because it saves them money in the short term, even though it could cost them customers in the long term. They rely on the barrier to entry of cost to get away with it, just as the wireless carriers in Canada regularly work to ensure that no real competitor exists against them so they can provide the worst quality server and most expensive data plans without fear of repercussions.

Many businesses have stopped trying to create value for society, instead trying to make competition difficult, if not impossible.

Our government systems have evolved from systems which work to improve the well being of all, into systems designed to maintain the status quo and only help those who are already successful – social darwinism by any other name.

We had a grand financial and economic experiment for the past 20 years. An experiment designed to take the wealth of the richest people and increase it without adding any significant value to the economy, all without risk – rent-seeking on a grand scale. These investments were nothing like the risky investments by the rich English bankers in the days of exploration – investments to build boats to bring the riches of the orient back to Europe or investments into building railways to connect millions and allow factories to be built. These investments were designed to be risk-free money producing money without any consideration for the production of value for society as a whole.

This whole house of cards collapsed in 2008.

Trillions of dollars were wiped from the account books in an instant and most Americans, heck most people worldwide had no say in this risk-taking, so their hands should have been clean when it failed. Those who taken the risk should bear the brunt of that gamble failing.

Yet, they haven’t.

In fact, those who did the risk-taking, those who gambled and lost have come out better than before from this. The economy has already recovere for them. Yet the contractors who build their houses, the factory labourers who build their goods, their software programmers who program their software, the doctors and nurses who take care of them, the teachers who taught them, the workers who pave their roads, even the barristas who makes their coffee are all still paying for their failure, and worse the government – our government – has made it clear that they aren’t going to even try to get any of the money back from them. The true failures of the experiment suffered nothing (or barely) while we, the labourers and the creators, suffer the most to save them from becoming failures.

We suffer in order to save these people from becoming fallen Gods, even though that’s what they already are. We are all sacrifices at the alter of individualism.

We went over 40 years from a world where the heroes brought back pieces of the stars to us, to a world where we all have to sacrifice to the fallen Gods of our individualistic religion, even if it costs us our soul as a united society.

Enhanced by Zemanta

La grande erreur de l’économie.

English: Graph illustrating the Brander Spence...
English: Graph illustrating the Brander Spencer model (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Avant que j’écrive cet article, il faut que j’excuse mon français. J’ai voulu pratiquer mon français en écrivant dans mon blogue pendant de nombreuses années, mais je n’ai pas eu la confiance d’écrire sur les sujets que j’aime en français. Ceci est mon premier essai. Cela dit, on y va.

Présentement, je lis un livre de Robert Ulanowicz, «The Third Window». Cette un livre sur les problèmes de science  écologique. Spécifiquement les nombreuses tentatives d’appliquer le réductionnisme de physiques sur le terrain. L’hypothèse de Ulanowicz’s est que la complexité inhérente dans le terrain rend ce programme impossible parce qu’une seule action peut changer tout le mécanisme dans l’objet d’étude. Une autre structure pour l’étude est requise, ou au moins c’est impératif à reconnaître les limitations extrêmes des modèles.

Je pense que c’est la même chose en économie, mais je pense aussi que beaucoup, si pas toutes, les personnes dans ce terrain ne considèrent pas ce problème. Ils sont trop obsédés par l’aide d’un programme de recherche comme celui des physiques – un programme basé sur le réductionnisme.

Ce programme est condamné à l’échec.

En finance, Nassim Taleb discute l’ idée du «Black Swan». Bien qu’il soit possible de définir une modèle où un grand nombre de traits observés existent, un seul incident peut changer l’ensemble du mécanisme. Alors, le modèle est complètement faux. C’est parce que le modèles comme ceux des physiques exigent que le système ait une distribution de probabilité simple – par exemple, une distribution de courbe en cloche.

C’est un château de cartes. Ce sera toujours un château de cartes.

Par exemple, si ce problème arrive en physique. Ce serait comme s’il y avait toujours une particule qui dévaste tout, et les particules arrive tout le temps. L’intégralité de l’étude de la physique devrait être réécrite toutes le quelques semaines. Ce serait inutile. Personne ne perdrait son temps à l’utiliser.

Mais, en économie, les décisions majeurs sont prises régulièrement avec ces modèles. Des décisions qui affectent des millions au quotidien. La science n’est pas une science. C’est une idéologie avec une mythologie construite à partir de fausses prémisses.

Je pense qui c’est le temps que ces décisions soient effectuées sans cette fausse science mais avec la reconnaissance que les décisions soient idéologiques. Les décisions le sont parce que les politiciens croient c’est la meilleure chose à faire. Cessons d’essayer de prétendre qu’il n y a aucune science derrière les décisions. Les décisions sont toutes idéologiques.

C’est le mensonge qui anime nos mauvaises décisions politiques.

C’est pourquoi une grande partie du monde doit avoir de nombreux problèmes.

Ou alors, il faut construire une nouvelle science de l’économie. Qu’on ne la fonde pas sur le culte de cargo du réductionnisme, mais sur la réalité que nous ne pourrons jamais comprendre comment fonctionne l’économie, sauf dans de rare circonstances simples.

Lorsqu’on n’a pas besoin d’un modèle de l’économie.