Tuesday, July 20, 2010
RE TECHNOCRATS REGULATORY PARADIGM: WHY NOT PLAY THE GAME TO WIN?
Just a few Socratic questions Re 'brontosauran' size new 'regulations':
Why not talk about structural reforms, rather than party politics again?
Because the electorate has long been politically dumbed down (not their fault), such that structural reforms is over their political heads.
(Krugman more or less made the point yesterday. He occassionally, though an economist, makes a good point of wider significance.)
Re regulating what I would call 'fast declining', rather than fast moving, Dino, as far as that limited and flawed constellation of goals goes, what would be the alternative, going out of the government business, I suppose?
The answer implied, it seems, is 'Yes'. Let me guess, the invisible, say, 'Casanova's', hand, again.
Who can blame them, it is the 'gospel' (or Torah) they have learned as technocrats of a certain stripe.
Having made a technocratic decision on 'less regulation' and on implementing no positive industrial/commercial policy
(except globalization trade and commercial concessions to defeat communism),
(and on long having technocratically foregone technocratically regulating compartmentalized legislative and executive decisions, or technocratically guiding promoting or preserving, the direction of industrial and commercial policies,)
has itself been the most disastrous 'technocratic' decision. fn. Prestowitz, etc.
That's a hard objection to dodge, technically, given what effective foreign government technocrats have been able to accomplish.
The one response Brooks got, from someone pointing out the low pay of gov technocrats, is really only the tip of the iceberg of reforms needed, to come abreast.
Which technocrats do you believe, "Pundit Technocrat" (c) (a journalistic expert of some stripe, eg political, economic, social science, experts)? If not, which other ones? How would you choose among them whom to believe? Your preexisting prejudices?
Would you look for criteria among or between them? Whose criteria? Unfortunately, it is a 'technocratic' question.
Thus the reasons why I have been pushing for some disciplinary way among the methods and conclusions of disparate but interrelated expertises.
I posted a comment re the mortgage debacle previously. That itself is an example of very complex private and public 'technocratic' activity; how much more of that type of laissez faire technocracy do you want?
I had dinner with the guy, many years ago, who wrote the software for the mortgage-backed securities instruments. Very nice guy. I don't remember what we talked about. He was just doing his narrow special field as a programmer in the securities industry.
Politicians or CEOs can get technocrats for any goal they select, they can mix or match technocrats, they want 'team players', almost invariably, that is the code word for a group of otherwise disparate experts, willing to shed their respective discipline's norms for a 'higher goal'.
Lawyers can do the same thing, with technical experts in many fields.
What is only good alternative to 'regulatory' technocrats?
Even 'worse' you may think, my suggestion for both regulatory/developmental ones.
At least I am moving toward a more rational and complete model that more successful regimes have been using to kick our ass.
To use a 'team sport' slogan my readers, some of them at least would understand,
WHY NOT PLAY THE GAME TO WIN?
The invisible hand technocracy has long been losing the game miserably.
Why not talk about structural reforms, rather than party politics again?
Because the electorate has long been politically dumbed down (not their fault), such that structural reforms is over their political heads.
(Krugman more or less made the point yesterday. He occassionally, though an economist, makes a good point of wider significance.)
Re regulating what I would call 'fast declining', rather than fast moving, Dino, as far as that limited and flawed constellation of goals goes, what would be the alternative, going out of the government business, I suppose?
The answer implied, it seems, is 'Yes'. Let me guess, the invisible, say, 'Casanova's', hand, again.
Who can blame them, it is the 'gospel' (or Torah) they have learned as technocrats of a certain stripe.
Having made a technocratic decision on 'less regulation' and on implementing no positive industrial/commercial policy
(except globalization trade and commercial concessions to defeat communism),
(and on long having technocratically foregone technocratically regulating compartmentalized legislative and executive decisions, or technocratically guiding promoting or preserving, the direction of industrial and commercial policies,)
has itself been the most disastrous 'technocratic' decision. fn. Prestowitz, etc.
That's a hard objection to dodge, technically, given what effective foreign government technocrats have been able to accomplish.
The one response Brooks got, from someone pointing out the low pay of gov technocrats, is really only the tip of the iceberg of reforms needed, to come abreast.
Which technocrats do you believe, "Pundit Technocrat" (c) (a journalistic expert of some stripe, eg political, economic, social science, experts)? If not, which other ones? How would you choose among them whom to believe? Your preexisting prejudices?
Would you look for criteria among or between them? Whose criteria? Unfortunately, it is a 'technocratic' question.
Thus the reasons why I have been pushing for some disciplinary way among the methods and conclusions of disparate but interrelated expertises.
I posted a comment re the mortgage debacle previously. That itself is an example of very complex private and public 'technocratic' activity; how much more of that type of laissez faire technocracy do you want?
I had dinner with the guy, many years ago, who wrote the software for the mortgage-backed securities instruments. Very nice guy. I don't remember what we talked about. He was just doing his narrow special field as a programmer in the securities industry.
Politicians or CEOs can get technocrats for any goal they select, they can mix or match technocrats, they want 'team players', almost invariably, that is the code word for a group of otherwise disparate experts, willing to shed their respective discipline's norms for a 'higher goal'.
Lawyers can do the same thing, with technical experts in many fields.
What is only good alternative to 'regulatory' technocrats?
Even 'worse' you may think, my suggestion for both regulatory/developmental ones.
At least I am moving toward a more rational and complete model that more successful regimes have been using to kick our ass.
To use a 'team sport' slogan my readers, some of them at least would understand,
WHY NOT PLAY THE GAME TO WIN?
The invisible hand technocracy has long been losing the game miserably.
No comments:
Post a Comment