- Market structure – free market versus socialist structures
- Regulatory framework – the disjointed regulatory frameworks and mixed agendas and the sense of urgency in the global regulatory framework
- Cultural setting – Anglo-Saxon, European, Middle Eastern, Far East, etc.
- Reliance on macro-economic tools including monetary and fiscal policies
- Skewed nature of national performance measurement
- Balance between equilibrium and disequilibrium clearance mechanisms in the economy
- Erosion of moral hazard and other distorting signals
Saturday, 24 July 2010
We link today’s article to one of our main themes on our home page, namely the ‘Battle against the Status Quo’, or as per the title of this posting, ‘The Morass of Mediocrity’.
The underlying intent and theme is that of competition and competitive behaviours and the difference between rules based and principles based standards.
It is our opinion that a rules based culture encourages more insular and introspective behaviours, where the rush is for the middle ground of mediocrity, rather than as the opposite principles based culture would be the encouragement for the search for innovation and competitiveness at the margins and extremes of the ‘functional envelope’. By this we mean the parameters and frameworks set-out in the principles based environment, to ensure that a well-defined playing field (not necessarily level), is established and market participants understand their boundaries and culture norms they have to adhere by as part of the participation process.
Yet, apparently, a more principles based regulatory framework is exactly what is being blamed for the Credit Quake of 2008 – 2010.
And if we analyse the circumstances that led to the regulatory failure and debt driven imbalance we currently experience, we would discover that it is because we operate in a hybrid world with symbiotic elements in the relationships between the private, public and third sectors.
Some of these factors include, but are not limited to:
However, as a mainly libertarian focussed publication, it would be remiss of us not to endorse the principles of minimal interference (small government in other words), yet we also realise that this has to be tempered with personal responsibility. However, because the symbiotic (hybrid) relationships have become so skewed and dysfunctional over the last few decades, was it any surprise that the uncertainty this created led to opportunist behaviours? Because a ‘moral compass’ is a very relative term, is it no surprise that depending on your own individual position and point of view, that the direction it indicates will be different from others?
The G20 are meeting again this weekend and the global regulatory framework will again be in more detailed focus, yet other priorities are again distracting the main thrust and issues on the agenda.
Therefore to conclude this brief interlude into the ‘morass of mediocrity’, the real question is:
If we all run and work hard for the centre ground, who will remain at the margins, pushing the envelope and ensuring that we break the tyranny of the status quo by exploring new unchartered territories and responsible risk taking behaviours?