"It both must be implemented and can’t be implemented at the same time."

More of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's uncommon sense ("Using leverage to cure the problems of too much leverage is not homeopathy, it is denial.") [Quick, free registration required.]  That's why other economists say (to quote Theo Kojak), "never happen, baby."  A commenter called Ilya says, "This is simply an indication of the limits to how much we should be listening to Taleb."  (But goes on to say:  "Paul Wilmott make a similar point today on his blog when he takes about society reaching the limits of its own incompetence. This is a very powerful observation, I think: modern life has become so complex as to challenge our abilities to cope and our competence.")

Comments

[realpc]

"modern life has become so complex as to challenge our abilities to cope and our competence."

Yes, it's definitely too complex for me. And impersonal! Did you have a conversation with an automated answering system at a government agency lately? Kafka could not have invented anything more cheerfully insane.

(Amba, I am confused, I thought you were quitting this blog.)

[amba]

I've quit writing on this blog. When there's something irresistible, I'm still doing "pointer posts" and starting conversations, but as soon as I can (i.e. after deadline) I'm going to open a group blog where more people can have passwords and start trouble.

[realpc]

I think that would be nice. There have been times when I wished I could start a topic. (I promise I won't constantly post about ID!)

[GN]

Life is complex because we allow "others" to blur the line between what we want and what we need

[Callimachus]

Denial is the right word. We're all sitting around waiting for the government to put it all back the way it was so we can go back to what we were doing. It's not going to happen.

[Donna B.]

Just to toot my horn a bit, I wrote back in mid-September questioning whether something too big to fail was also too big not to fail.

GN, I don't think that covers complexity at all. Humans have always been good at blurring that line and it doesn't require complexity.

What complexity does is take the axiom, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" and turns it on its head. It takes one egg and puts it into many baskets without giving a thought to the fact that no omelette can be made from the widely spread baskets.

But, in basket-speak, you still have your egg.

Any good idea taken to extremes becomes a bad one.

[karen]

"Any good idea taken to extremes becomes a bad one."

heh- a bad egg.

i'm toying w/the idea of trading our GMC pick-up in for a Ford(and hardly believing i've said that out loud:0)). I don't need Obama and the gov't to guarantee my truck, i want a gov't that keeps it's nose outta privat business. Yeah, they took the $$$$ in the bailout, but- what business of the President is it to fire the CEO... that's a line that i didn't believe would be blurred.

But, wdik.

[amba]

Completely serious question, Karen -- who will police the CEOs, if not the government? You'd like to see the market police them? Then the company would have to go bankrupt. And I'm not saying it shouldn't! But if THEY want the government to bail them out, aren't they then forfeiting their right to do whatever they please? You cannot choose to have only good consequences. And the fact is, these big strong capitalist companies are asking the government to rescue them -- more than most of us little folks do.

I just don't understand the need for continuing loyalty to companies that have forfeited it twice: once by doing business badly, and then by running crying to Mommy Sam!

[karen]

It just seemed a form of blackmail in this specific case of firing this CEO. Nobody else has been fired, have they? Yet, many have suckled off Mommy Sam's teats- for decades, even. Incrementally, it's only getting worse and if this is Obama's method of rescue, well: it sucks(les).

Don't companies have boards/directors that can keep track of performance? Or, don't stockholders have a say in what makes or breaks their bottom line? Either fire all the losers and replace them- or dry off the ca$h cow. Otherwise, it appears personal.

And- on another note, but same vein- why can't we fire Congressmen that pilfer our cash and that obviously do NOT have their constituients(too many "t's"?)best interests in mind- only the linings of their pockets. Bernie is holding a special meeting to discuss the low milk prices w/farmers- to help them & hear their pain. Same 'ol, same 'ol. Uh, ~a little less talk and a lot more action~, Bernie(you dunce on the dole).
*
The line in the ~~ is a western song; Toby Keith, i think.

I want to say, that i really like the way the comments print out, now. Be a shame to lose it *winkwink*.

[Spud]

Karen, if Obama shared your views on abortion, his economic policies wouldn't bother you, same with Bernie Sanders.

[karen]

Yeah- because i'm only a one issue voter and blind to the multitude of offenses commited as long as someone would only think the way i think they oughtta.

Gotta be it. I'm just that ignorant.

[Spud]

No Karen, you're not ignorant at all. You just don't do a very good job when it comes to the art of balancing passion with reason.

[GN]

Karen, I have to agree with your complexity statement, but OTOH, sometimes the correct answer is to make things actively LESS complex. As far as the CEO's go, they give up all rights to security as soon as they ask for our money. As far as the politicians go, it would be interesting to see how much stock they own in the companies that are asking for bail out funds.
As far as director's boards go, they couldn't have been watching very closely to begin with.